Why don't all electrons contribute to total orbital angular momentum of an atom?For mesons, or baryons, do sea quarks contribute to the angular momentum of the bound state?Total Angular Momentum of a Hydrogen Atomorbital angular momentum of the silver atomOrbital angular momentum of electronsSpin, orbital angular momentum and total angular momentumTotal orbital and spin angular momentum for a closed shellIs angular momentum only in orbital or spin?Total Orbital Angular Momentum and its relation to $M_L$ & SymmetryMust the total orbital angular momentum quantum number $L$ be less than the principal quantum number $n$? If so, why?Orbital angular momentum quantum numbers - subtracted?
What can a novel do that film and TV cannot?
Why is the saxophone not common in classical repertoire?
Is my background sufficient to start Quantum Computing
Did Stalin kill all Soviet officers involved in the Winter War?
Phrase origin: "You ain't got to go home but you got to get out of here."
Show that there are infinitely more problems than we will ever be able to compute
Mixing Acrylic Paint With Water ( And Storing It )
How frequently do Russian people still refer to others by their patronymic (отчество)?
What caused the flashes in the video footage of Chernobyl?
Bypass with wrong cvv of debit card and getting OTP
Why is quantum gravity non-renormalizable?
Should I warn my boss I might take sick leave
What is meaning of 4 letter acronyms in Roman names like Titus Flavius T. f. T. n. Sabinus?
Do the 26 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion people?
Use real text instead of lipsum in moderncv quote alignment
Who are the police in Hong Kong?
Is it possible to spoof an IP address to an exact number?
Are there advantages in writing by hand over typing out a story?
Why did my leaking pool light trip the circuit breaker, but not the GFCI?
What do you call the angle of the direction of an airplane?
Magento 2: I am not aware about magneto optimization. Can you please share the steps for this?
Blood-based alcohol for vampires?
PhD: When to quit and move on?
Does this circuit have marginal voltage level problem?
Why don't all electrons contribute to total orbital angular momentum of an atom?
For mesons, or baryons, do sea quarks contribute to the angular momentum of the bound state?Total Angular Momentum of a Hydrogen Atomorbital angular momentum of the silver atomOrbital angular momentum of electronsSpin, orbital angular momentum and total angular momentumTotal orbital and spin angular momentum for a closed shellIs angular momentum only in orbital or spin?Total Orbital Angular Momentum and its relation to $M_L$ & SymmetryMust the total orbital angular momentum quantum number $L$ be less than the principal quantum number $n$? If so, why?Orbital angular momentum quantum numbers - subtracted?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
There are 47 electrons in a Silver atom, but talking about its orbital angular momentum we only take the outermost valence electron which occupies the 5s orbital. Why don't the remaining inner 46 electrons contribute to the total orbital angular momentum of a silver atom?
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum atomic-physics quantum-spin orbitals
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are 47 electrons in a Silver atom, but talking about its orbital angular momentum we only take the outermost valence electron which occupies the 5s orbital. Why don't the remaining inner 46 electrons contribute to the total orbital angular momentum of a silver atom?
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum atomic-physics quantum-spin orbitals
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
Jun 24 at 20:24
1
$begingroup$
Silver is perhaps not a great example, since the $s$-wave orbitals (with angular momentum quantum number $ell=0$) don't carry any orbital angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are 47 electrons in a Silver atom, but talking about its orbital angular momentum we only take the outermost valence electron which occupies the 5s orbital. Why don't the remaining inner 46 electrons contribute to the total orbital angular momentum of a silver atom?
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum atomic-physics quantum-spin orbitals
$endgroup$
There are 47 electrons in a Silver atom, but talking about its orbital angular momentum we only take the outermost valence electron which occupies the 5s orbital. Why don't the remaining inner 46 electrons contribute to the total orbital angular momentum of a silver atom?
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum atomic-physics quantum-spin orbitals
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum atomic-physics quantum-spin orbitals
edited Jun 25 at 8:40
Qmechanic♦
110k12 gold badges211 silver badges1297 bronze badges
110k12 gold badges211 silver badges1297 bronze badges
asked Jun 24 at 20:13
ROBIN RAJROBIN RAJ
997 bronze badges
997 bronze badges
3
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
Jun 24 at 20:24
1
$begingroup$
Silver is perhaps not a great example, since the $s$-wave orbitals (with angular momentum quantum number $ell=0$) don't carry any orbital angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:25
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
Jun 24 at 20:24
1
$begingroup$
Silver is perhaps not a great example, since the $s$-wave orbitals (with angular momentum quantum number $ell=0$) don't carry any orbital angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:25
3
3
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
Jun 24 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
Jun 24 at 20:24
1
1
$begingroup$
Silver is perhaps not a great example, since the $s$-wave orbitals (with angular momentum quantum number $ell=0$) don't carry any orbital angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:25
$begingroup$
Silver is perhaps not a great example, since the $s$-wave orbitals (with angular momentum quantum number $ell=0$) don't carry any orbital angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:25
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We describe the whole system with a state, this state is a combination of the single particle states (orbitals). Each orbital we define in terms of an orbital momentum shell. A full shell has zero total angular momentum, therefore multiple full shells still have zero total angular momentum. Finally a full shell combined with a few valence electrons in higher orbitals would have the angular momentum of only the valence electrons. Now I will demonstrate why a full shell must have zero angular momentum.
An example using the simplest S-shell.
We have two states available, "up" $|uparrow rangle$, and "down" $|downarrow rangle$. We also have the constraint that these are fermions, meaning any combination has to be entirely antisymmetric when two particles are interchanged.
If we are placing a single electron into the S-shell we have 2 states available, either:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
This is the singlet configuration which has angular total angular momentum zero.
Importantly there is only one state with total angular momentum $J=0$, two states with $J=frac12$, three states with $J=1$ (triplet), and so on.
Here I will outline the logic of the general proof. Firstly ignoring spin, each single particle orbital $l$ has $2l +1$ states with angular momentum projections ranging from $-l leq m_l leq l$. Secondly not ignoring spin you can place 2 electrons in each orbital with spin up or down. This gives $2(2l + 1)$ single particle states. If we have completely filled this shell that means that we have placed an electron in each single particle orbital.
Now if we count all of the unique ways we can fill all of the orbitals, there is only one way to do this. That means that this is a singlet configuration and not a member of a higher multiplet (such as the triplet with 3 states mentioned above).
The total state is defined in terms of having a total angular momentum and total angular momentum projection. Clearly it has angular momentum projection of $0$ since $sum_m= -l^m = l m = 0$. However since it is a singlet state it also has total angular momentum $0$, and we can treat it like a "core" with no angular momentum.
As a side note this is used extensively in atomic physics as well as nuclear physics. For nuclear physics we would not be talking about electrons but instead protons and neutrons. Therefore we not only have the choice of spin up or down for each orbital but also between proton and neutron. This gives us 4 particles in each orbital, and is made more rigorous with the idea of "isospin". So far as most nuclear interactions care their interactions are the same so we can treat them as 2 projections of one object, the "nucleon". The total wavefunction must be antisymmetric under interchange in the combined spatial-spin-isospin space. A filled orbital momentum shell would therefor have zero angular momentum as well as zero total isospin.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommandket[1]#1right>$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ketuparrowdownarrow$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:29
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
Jun 25 at 5:00
$begingroup$
My answer was generic so it can be applied to any atom (or really any multi-particle spherical system). Again only the valence electrons will contribute to the angular momentum. You need to actually work through the angular momentum coupling, but not for all of the electrons in the system, as the lowest filled S-shell will not contribute.
$endgroup$
– TEH
Jun 25 at 14:49
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f487911%2fwhy-dont-all-electrons-contribute-to-total-orbital-angular-momentum-of-an-atom%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We describe the whole system with a state, this state is a combination of the single particle states (orbitals). Each orbital we define in terms of an orbital momentum shell. A full shell has zero total angular momentum, therefore multiple full shells still have zero total angular momentum. Finally a full shell combined with a few valence electrons in higher orbitals would have the angular momentum of only the valence electrons. Now I will demonstrate why a full shell must have zero angular momentum.
An example using the simplest S-shell.
We have two states available, "up" $|uparrow rangle$, and "down" $|downarrow rangle$. We also have the constraint that these are fermions, meaning any combination has to be entirely antisymmetric when two particles are interchanged.
If we are placing a single electron into the S-shell we have 2 states available, either:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
This is the singlet configuration which has angular total angular momentum zero.
Importantly there is only one state with total angular momentum $J=0$, two states with $J=frac12$, three states with $J=1$ (triplet), and so on.
Here I will outline the logic of the general proof. Firstly ignoring spin, each single particle orbital $l$ has $2l +1$ states with angular momentum projections ranging from $-l leq m_l leq l$. Secondly not ignoring spin you can place 2 electrons in each orbital with spin up or down. This gives $2(2l + 1)$ single particle states. If we have completely filled this shell that means that we have placed an electron in each single particle orbital.
Now if we count all of the unique ways we can fill all of the orbitals, there is only one way to do this. That means that this is a singlet configuration and not a member of a higher multiplet (such as the triplet with 3 states mentioned above).
The total state is defined in terms of having a total angular momentum and total angular momentum projection. Clearly it has angular momentum projection of $0$ since $sum_m= -l^m = l m = 0$. However since it is a singlet state it also has total angular momentum $0$, and we can treat it like a "core" with no angular momentum.
As a side note this is used extensively in atomic physics as well as nuclear physics. For nuclear physics we would not be talking about electrons but instead protons and neutrons. Therefore we not only have the choice of spin up or down for each orbital but also between proton and neutron. This gives us 4 particles in each orbital, and is made more rigorous with the idea of "isospin". So far as most nuclear interactions care their interactions are the same so we can treat them as 2 projections of one object, the "nucleon". The total wavefunction must be antisymmetric under interchange in the combined spatial-spin-isospin space. A filled orbital momentum shell would therefor have zero angular momentum as well as zero total isospin.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommandket[1]#1right>$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ketuparrowdownarrow$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:29
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
Jun 25 at 5:00
$begingroup$
My answer was generic so it can be applied to any atom (or really any multi-particle spherical system). Again only the valence electrons will contribute to the angular momentum. You need to actually work through the angular momentum coupling, but not for all of the electrons in the system, as the lowest filled S-shell will not contribute.
$endgroup$
– TEH
Jun 25 at 14:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We describe the whole system with a state, this state is a combination of the single particle states (orbitals). Each orbital we define in terms of an orbital momentum shell. A full shell has zero total angular momentum, therefore multiple full shells still have zero total angular momentum. Finally a full shell combined with a few valence electrons in higher orbitals would have the angular momentum of only the valence electrons. Now I will demonstrate why a full shell must have zero angular momentum.
An example using the simplest S-shell.
We have two states available, "up" $|uparrow rangle$, and "down" $|downarrow rangle$. We also have the constraint that these are fermions, meaning any combination has to be entirely antisymmetric when two particles are interchanged.
If we are placing a single electron into the S-shell we have 2 states available, either:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
This is the singlet configuration which has angular total angular momentum zero.
Importantly there is only one state with total angular momentum $J=0$, two states with $J=frac12$, three states with $J=1$ (triplet), and so on.
Here I will outline the logic of the general proof. Firstly ignoring spin, each single particle orbital $l$ has $2l +1$ states with angular momentum projections ranging from $-l leq m_l leq l$. Secondly not ignoring spin you can place 2 electrons in each orbital with spin up or down. This gives $2(2l + 1)$ single particle states. If we have completely filled this shell that means that we have placed an electron in each single particle orbital.
Now if we count all of the unique ways we can fill all of the orbitals, there is only one way to do this. That means that this is a singlet configuration and not a member of a higher multiplet (such as the triplet with 3 states mentioned above).
The total state is defined in terms of having a total angular momentum and total angular momentum projection. Clearly it has angular momentum projection of $0$ since $sum_m= -l^m = l m = 0$. However since it is a singlet state it also has total angular momentum $0$, and we can treat it like a "core" with no angular momentum.
As a side note this is used extensively in atomic physics as well as nuclear physics. For nuclear physics we would not be talking about electrons but instead protons and neutrons. Therefore we not only have the choice of spin up or down for each orbital but also between proton and neutron. This gives us 4 particles in each orbital, and is made more rigorous with the idea of "isospin". So far as most nuclear interactions care their interactions are the same so we can treat them as 2 projections of one object, the "nucleon". The total wavefunction must be antisymmetric under interchange in the combined spatial-spin-isospin space. A filled orbital momentum shell would therefor have zero angular momentum as well as zero total isospin.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommandket[1]#1right>$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ketuparrowdownarrow$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:29
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
Jun 25 at 5:00
$begingroup$
My answer was generic so it can be applied to any atom (or really any multi-particle spherical system). Again only the valence electrons will contribute to the angular momentum. You need to actually work through the angular momentum coupling, but not for all of the electrons in the system, as the lowest filled S-shell will not contribute.
$endgroup$
– TEH
Jun 25 at 14:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We describe the whole system with a state, this state is a combination of the single particle states (orbitals). Each orbital we define in terms of an orbital momentum shell. A full shell has zero total angular momentum, therefore multiple full shells still have zero total angular momentum. Finally a full shell combined with a few valence electrons in higher orbitals would have the angular momentum of only the valence electrons. Now I will demonstrate why a full shell must have zero angular momentum.
An example using the simplest S-shell.
We have two states available, "up" $|uparrow rangle$, and "down" $|downarrow rangle$. We also have the constraint that these are fermions, meaning any combination has to be entirely antisymmetric when two particles are interchanged.
If we are placing a single electron into the S-shell we have 2 states available, either:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
This is the singlet configuration which has angular total angular momentum zero.
Importantly there is only one state with total angular momentum $J=0$, two states with $J=frac12$, three states with $J=1$ (triplet), and so on.
Here I will outline the logic of the general proof. Firstly ignoring spin, each single particle orbital $l$ has $2l +1$ states with angular momentum projections ranging from $-l leq m_l leq l$. Secondly not ignoring spin you can place 2 electrons in each orbital with spin up or down. This gives $2(2l + 1)$ single particle states. If we have completely filled this shell that means that we have placed an electron in each single particle orbital.
Now if we count all of the unique ways we can fill all of the orbitals, there is only one way to do this. That means that this is a singlet configuration and not a member of a higher multiplet (such as the triplet with 3 states mentioned above).
The total state is defined in terms of having a total angular momentum and total angular momentum projection. Clearly it has angular momentum projection of $0$ since $sum_m= -l^m = l m = 0$. However since it is a singlet state it also has total angular momentum $0$, and we can treat it like a "core" with no angular momentum.
As a side note this is used extensively in atomic physics as well as nuclear physics. For nuclear physics we would not be talking about electrons but instead protons and neutrons. Therefore we not only have the choice of spin up or down for each orbital but also between proton and neutron. This gives us 4 particles in each orbital, and is made more rigorous with the idea of "isospin". So far as most nuclear interactions care their interactions are the same so we can treat them as 2 projections of one object, the "nucleon". The total wavefunction must be antisymmetric under interchange in the combined spatial-spin-isospin space. A filled orbital momentum shell would therefor have zero angular momentum as well as zero total isospin.
$endgroup$
We describe the whole system with a state, this state is a combination of the single particle states (orbitals). Each orbital we define in terms of an orbital momentum shell. A full shell has zero total angular momentum, therefore multiple full shells still have zero total angular momentum. Finally a full shell combined with a few valence electrons in higher orbitals would have the angular momentum of only the valence electrons. Now I will demonstrate why a full shell must have zero angular momentum.
An example using the simplest S-shell.
We have two states available, "up" $|uparrow rangle$, and "down" $|downarrow rangle$. We also have the constraint that these are fermions, meaning any combination has to be entirely antisymmetric when two particles are interchanged.
If we are placing a single electron into the S-shell we have 2 states available, either:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
This is the singlet configuration which has angular total angular momentum zero.
Importantly there is only one state with total angular momentum $J=0$, two states with $J=frac12$, three states with $J=1$ (triplet), and so on.
Here I will outline the logic of the general proof. Firstly ignoring spin, each single particle orbital $l$ has $2l +1$ states with angular momentum projections ranging from $-l leq m_l leq l$. Secondly not ignoring spin you can place 2 electrons in each orbital with spin up or down. This gives $2(2l + 1)$ single particle states. If we have completely filled this shell that means that we have placed an electron in each single particle orbital.
Now if we count all of the unique ways we can fill all of the orbitals, there is only one way to do this. That means that this is a singlet configuration and not a member of a higher multiplet (such as the triplet with 3 states mentioned above).
The total state is defined in terms of having a total angular momentum and total angular momentum projection. Clearly it has angular momentum projection of $0$ since $sum_m= -l^m = l m = 0$. However since it is a singlet state it also has total angular momentum $0$, and we can treat it like a "core" with no angular momentum.
As a side note this is used extensively in atomic physics as well as nuclear physics. For nuclear physics we would not be talking about electrons but instead protons and neutrons. Therefore we not only have the choice of spin up or down for each orbital but also between proton and neutron. This gives us 4 particles in each orbital, and is made more rigorous with the idea of "isospin". So far as most nuclear interactions care their interactions are the same so we can treat them as 2 projections of one object, the "nucleon". The total wavefunction must be antisymmetric under interchange in the combined spatial-spin-isospin space. A filled orbital momentum shell would therefor have zero angular momentum as well as zero total isospin.
edited Jun 24 at 21:25
answered Jun 24 at 20:57
TEHTEH
4818 bronze badges
4818 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommandket[1]#1right>$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ketuparrowdownarrow$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:29
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
Jun 25 at 5:00
$begingroup$
My answer was generic so it can be applied to any atom (or really any multi-particle spherical system). Again only the valence electrons will contribute to the angular momentum. You need to actually work through the angular momentum coupling, but not for all of the electrons in the system, as the lowest filled S-shell will not contribute.
$endgroup$
– TEH
Jun 25 at 14:49
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommandket[1]#1right>$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ketuparrowdownarrow$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:29
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
Jun 25 at 5:00
$begingroup$
My answer was generic so it can be applied to any atom (or really any multi-particle spherical system). Again only the valence electrons will contribute to the angular momentum. You need to actually work through the angular momentum coupling, but not for all of the electrons in the system, as the lowest filled S-shell will not contribute.
$endgroup$
– TEH
Jun 25 at 14:49
2
2
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a
$providecommandket[1]#1right>$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$
, $ketuparrowdownarrow$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$
.$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:29
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a
$providecommandket[1]#1right>$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$
, $ketuparrowdownarrow$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$
.$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:29
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
Jun 25 at 5:00
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
Jun 25 at 5:00
$begingroup$
My answer was generic so it can be applied to any atom (or really any multi-particle spherical system). Again only the valence electrons will contribute to the angular momentum. You need to actually work through the angular momentum coupling, but not for all of the electrons in the system, as the lowest filled S-shell will not contribute.
$endgroup$
– TEH
Jun 25 at 14:49
$begingroup$
My answer was generic so it can be applied to any atom (or really any multi-particle spherical system). Again only the valence electrons will contribute to the angular momentum. You need to actually work through the angular momentum coupling, but not for all of the electrons in the system, as the lowest filled S-shell will not contribute.
$endgroup$
– TEH
Jun 25 at 14:49
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f487911%2fwhy-dont-all-electrons-contribute-to-total-orbital-angular-momentum-of-an-atom%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
Jun 24 at 20:24
1
$begingroup$
Silver is perhaps not a great example, since the $s$-wave orbitals (with angular momentum quantum number $ell=0$) don't carry any orbital angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jun 24 at 21:25