From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Dec 23 03:48:00 2020
From: "Jan Halborg Jensen jhjensen**chem.ku.dk" <owner-chemistry++server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: why is there no 2d subshell in atoms
Message-Id: <-54245-201223034647-27713-HeHgdGz0wQpta+b9wjWuIQ++server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: Jan Halborg Jensen <jhjensen]=[chem.ku.dk>
Content-ID: <6531995E47538941BF7B44EAC4E40159++alumni.ku.dk>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 08:46:35 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sent to CCL by: Jan Halborg Jensen [jhjensen~!~chem.ku.dk]
Dear Tom
One way to think about it is that the principal quantum number n is related to the number of nodes of the AO: number of nodes = n-1. The minimum number of nodes in a d-orbital is 2 (you can’t have a d-orbital shape without 2 nodes). So the minimum value of n for d-orbitals is 3.
So why is the number of nodes related to n? One way to think about n, at least for the H atom, is in terms of the orbital energies: orbitals with the same energy have the same n. In other words the energy of the electron is a function of the number of nodes. The nodes increase the energy because they cause the electron to be further away from the nucleus (on average). The nodes are there to keep the orbitals orthogonal so that the Pauli exclusion (i.e. anti-symmetry) principle is satisfied, among other things.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Jan
> On 23 Dec 2020, at 04.53, Thomas Manz thomasamanz++gmail.com <owner-chemistry*|*ccl.net> wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am looking for a reference to cite that provides mathematical details as to why a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand the traditional pat answer that n >= L+1 where L is angular quantum number ( L = 0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum number. I would like to understand the mathematical and physical reason for this, preferably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a good reference for this?
>
> Although the above question seems "simple", I believe there more to it than first meets the eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the nucleons inside an atomic nucleus. In nuclear models (e.g., nuclear shell model), for example, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why does such an orbital exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both are spin 1/2 fermions? The physical interaction (coupling regime) must have something to do with whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particular fermion. In the case of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that two nucleons practically pair to make an effective boson; however, it is my understanding that for nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon can still exist in orbitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is substantial for nucleons, but also substantial for electrons in heavy elements.
>
> I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights as well references to understand what is going on here.
>
> Sincerest thanks,
>
> Tom Manz
From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Dec 23 05:24:00 2020
From: "Raghu R raghu.rama.chem,,gmail.com" <owner-chemistry-.-server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: why is there no 2d subshell in atoms
Message-Id: <-54246-201223052037-19548-JlIneMCaW8AOmX7tfEcuhw-.-server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: Raghu R <raghu.rama.chem^_^gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006393d605b71f0a39"
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:50:18 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sent to CCL by: Raghu R [raghu.rama.chem^-^gmail.com]
--0000000000006393d605b71f0a39
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
It's the 1/r Coulomb potential for the electronic problem. For nucleons,
the potential is different allowing 1f functions.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:32 AM Thomas Manz thomasamanz++gmail.com <
owner-chemistry]*[ccl.net> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am looking for a reference to cite that provides mathematical details as
> to why a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand the
> traditional pat answer that n >= L+1 where L is angular quantum number ( L
> = 0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum number. I
> would like to understand the mathematical and physical reason for this,
> preferably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a
> good reference for this?
>
> Although the above question seems "simple", I believe there more to it
> than first meets the eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the
> nucleons inside an atomic nucleus. In nuclear models (e.g., nuclear shell
> model), for example, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why
> does such an orbital exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both
> are spin 1/2 fermions? The physical interaction (coupling regime) must have
> something to do with whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particular
> fermion. In the case of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that
> two nucleons practically pair to make an effective boson; however, it is my
> understanding that for nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon
> can still exist in orbitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is
> substantial for nucleons, but also substantial for electrons in heavy
> elements.
>
> I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights as well
> references to understand what is going on here.
>
> Sincerest thanks,
>
> Tom Manz
>
--0000000000006393d605b71f0a39
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,he=
lvetica,sans-serif">It's the 1/r Coulomb potential for the electronic p=
roblem. For nucleons, the potential is different allowing 1f functions. <br=
></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail=
_attr">On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:32 AM Thomas Manz thomasamanz++<a href=3D=
"http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a> <<a href=3D"mailto:owner-chemistry]*[ccl.=
net">owner-chemistry]*[ccl.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204=
,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Dear colleagues,<div><br></div=
><div>I am looking for a reference to cite that=C2=A0provides mathematical =
details as to why a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand th=
e traditional=C2=A0pat answer that n >=3D L+1 where L is angular quantum=
number ( L =3D 0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal qua=
ntum number. I would like to understand the mathematical and physical reaso=
n for this, preferably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyo=
ne know a good reference for this?</div><div><br></div><div>Although the ab=
ove question seems "simple", I believe=C2=A0there more to it than=
first meets the eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the nucle=
ons inside an atomic nucleus. In nuclear=C2=A0models (e.g., nuclear shell m=
odel), for example, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why does=
such an orbital exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both are sp=
in 1/2 fermions? The physical interaction (coupling regime) must have somet=
hing to do with whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particular fermi=
on. In the case of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that two nuc=
leons practically pair to make an effective boson; however, it is my unders=
tanding that for nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon can s=
till exist in orbitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is substantial f=
or nucleons, but also substantial for electrons in heavy elements.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights a=
s well references to understand what is going on here.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>Sincerest thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Tom Manz</div></div>
</blockquote></div>
--0000000000006393d605b71f0a39--
From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Dec 23 06:18:01 2020
From: "Mariusz Radon mariusz.radon[]gmail.com" <owner-chemistry##server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: why is there no 2d subshell in atoms
Message-Id: <-54247-201223061426-14504-kV+a7wlTQwQj6ExW2YdOMw##server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: Mariusz Radon <mariusz.radon===gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:14:15 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Sent to CCL by: Mariusz Radon [mariusz.radon^gmail.com]
> On 23 Dec 2020, at 04:53, Thomas Manz thomasamanz++gmail.com <owner-chemistry()ccl.net> wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am looking for a reference to cite that provides mathematical details as to why a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand the traditional pat answer that n >= L+1 where L is angular quantum number ( L = 0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum number. I would like to understand the mathematical and physical reason for this, preferably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a good reference for this?
>
> Although the above question seems "simple", I believe there more to it than first meets the eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the nucleons inside an atomic nucleus. In nuclear models (e.g., nuclear shell model), for example, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why does such an orbital exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both are spin 1/2 fermions? The physical interaction (coupling regime) must have something to do with whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particular fermion. In the case of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that two nucleons practically pair to make an effective boson; however, it is my understanding that for nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon can still exist in orbitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is substantial for nucleons, but also substantial for electrons in heavy elements.
>
> I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights as well references to understand what is going on here.
>
> Sincerest thanks,
>
> Tom Manz
Dear Tom:
I believe the answer is quite simple. If you perform SCF-LCAO calculations for single atoms, the first (in terms of orbital energy) d-type orbital obtained has no radial nodes, and therefore it is (normally) called 3d for analogy with 3d orbital of hydrogen atom (which also has no radial nodes). The same holds true about first (radial nodeless) f-type orbital, which is then called 4f per analogiam with hydrogen atom. But in principle you could label these orbitals as “1d” and “1f” meaning "the first d orbital”, “the first f orbital”. ( By the way, although I am inexpert in nuclear physics, this could be the reason why you encounter things like "1f orbitals”? )
Whereas the angular quantum number (L) is well defined in any atom (due to spherical symmetry), the principal quantum number (N) is no longer strictly defined in multi-electron atoms. Although N remains a very valuable concept (to keep analogy with hydrogen atom) you can live without it. Therefore, labeling of real atomic orbitals as 3d (to stress analogy with hydrogen atom) or 1d (to say it is the first d orbital of this particular atom) is, in principle, equally well founded, although the first way is much more common, at least in chemistry.
It is even more tricky when it comes to atomic basis sets. In some basis sets all d functions have the form of 3d orbital of an H atom, i.e. they are all radial nodeless. Then, if you perform SCF-LCAO calculation for an atom, you obtain combinations of these function having zero, one, two, … radial nodal planes. The resulting orbitals are conventionally labelled as 3d, 4d, 5d, … in analogy to the number of nodal planes in these hydrogen atom orbitals. But you do not need to know or use the N quantum number in any way to perform these calculations and (probably in most cases) even to construct the underlying atomic basis sets.
Best wishes,
Mariusz
--
Mariusz Radon, Ph.D., D.Sc.
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Chemistry, Jagiellonian University
Address: Gronostajowa 2, 30-387 Krakow, Poland
Room C1-06, Phone: 48-12-686-24-89
E-mail: mradon()chemia.uj.edu.pl (mariusz.radon()uj.edu.pl)
Web: http://www.chemia.uj.edu.pl/~mradon
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1901-8521
From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Dec 23 12:15:00 2020
From: "Dr.N Sukumar n.sukumar::snu.edu.in" <owner-chemistry,server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: why is there no 2d subshell in atoms
Message-Id: <-54248-201223024215-5878-abj6zFEF+vxut26RVtuBog,server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: "Dr.N Sukumar" <n.sukumar*|*snu.edu.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f966fb05b71cd33f"
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:11:55 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sent to CCL by: "Dr.N Sukumar" [n.sukumar ~ snu.edu.in]
--000000000000f966fb05b71cd33f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It has to do with the nature of the potential. Atomic orbitals are
solutions of the Hamiltnian in a spherically symmetric potential; the
radial part of the solutions are the spherical harmonics Ylm. In a disk
jellium model, for instance (often used in 2d clusters), you do find 1f and
2d orbitals.
*N. SukumarProfessor of ChemistryDirector, Center for Informatics**Shiv
Nadar University, India*
https://chemistry.snu.edu.in/people/faculty/n-sukumar
<http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470769009.html>
"The belief that there is only one truth is the deepest root of evil in the
world."
=E2=80=94 Max Born
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:14 AM Thomas Manz thomasamanz++gmail.com <
owner-chemistry,,ccl.net> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am looking for a reference to cite that provides mathematical details a=
s
> to why a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand the
> traditional pat answer that n >=3D L+1 where L is angular quantum number =
( L
> =3D 0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum numbe=
r. I
> would like to understand the mathematical and physical reason for this,
> preferably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a
> good reference for this?
>
> Although the above question seems "simple", I believe there more to it
> than first meets the eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the
> nucleons inside an atomic nucleus. In nuclear models (e.g., nuclear shell
> model), for example, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why
> does such an orbital exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both
> are spin 1/2 fermions? The physical interaction (coupling regime) must ha=
ve
> something to do with whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particula=
r
> fermion. In the case of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that
> two nucleons practically pair to make an effective boson; however, it is =
my
> understanding that for nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucle=
on
> can still exist in orbitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is
> substantial for nucleons, but also substantial for electrons in heavy
> elements.
>
> I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights as well
> references to understand what is going on here.
>
> Sincerest thanks,
>
> Tom Manz
>
--000000000000f966fb05b71cd33f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">It has to do with the nature of the potential. Atomic orbi=
tals are solutions of the Hamiltnian in a spherically symmetric potential; =
the radial part of the solutions are the spherical harmonics Ylm. In a disk=
jellium model, for instance (often used in 2d clusters), you do find 1f an=
d 2d orbitals.<br clear=3D"all"><div><div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_s=
ignature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">=
<div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div=
dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,255)"><i>N. S=
ukumar<br>Professor of Chemistry<br>Director, Center for Informatics<br></i=
><i>Shiv Nadar University, India</i></span></div><div><a href=3D"https://ch=
emistry.snu.edu.in/people/faculty/n-sukumar" target=3D"_blank"><span style=
=3D"color:rgb(51,51,255)">https://chemistry.snu.edu.in/people/faculty/n-suk=
umar</span></a><br><a href=3D"http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/produ=
ctCd-0470769009.html" target=3D"_blank"><img src=3D"http://media.wiley.com/=
product_data/coverImage300/09/04707690/0470769009.jpg" width=3D"110" height=
=3D"175"></a><br><p><span>"The belief that there is only one truth is =
the deepest root of evil in the world."</span></p><cite>=E2=80=94 Max =
Born</cite><span><span></span></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></=
div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div=
></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, De=
c 23, 2020 at 11:14 AM Thomas Manz thomasamanz++<a href=3D"http://gmail.com=
">gmail.com</a> <<a href=3D"mailto:owner-chemistry,,ccl.net">owner-chemis=
try,,ccl.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Dear colleagues,<div><br></div><div>I am lookin=
g for a reference to cite that=C2=A0provides mathematical details as to why=
a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand the traditional=C2=
=A0pat answer that n >=3D L+1 where L is angular quantum number ( L =3D =
0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum number. I w=
ould like to understand the mathematical and physical reason for this, pref=
erably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a good r=
eference for this?</div><div><br></div><div>Although the above question see=
ms "simple", I believe=C2=A0there more to it than first meets the=
eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the nucleons inside an at=
omic nucleus. In nuclear=C2=A0models (e.g., nuclear shell model), for examp=
le, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why does such an orbital=
exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both are spin 1/2 fermions?=
The physical interaction (coupling regime) must have something to do with =
whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particular fermion. In the case =
of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that two nucleons practicall=
y pair to make an effective boson; however, it is my understanding that for=
nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon can still exist in or=
bitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is substantial for nucleons, but=
also substantial for electrons in heavy elements.</div><div><br></div><div=
>I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights as well reference=
s to understand what is going on here.</div><div><br></div><div>Sincerest t=
hanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Tom Manz</div></div>
</blockquote></div>
--000000000000f966fb05b71cd33f--
From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Dec 23 12:50:00 2020
From: "Martin Kaupp martin.kaupp!A!tu-berlin.de" <owner-chemistry[A]server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: why is there no 2d subshell in atoms
Message-Id: <-54249-201223052314-20205-R8thgn7r/D7X7Db17EOgJA[A]server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: Martin Kaupp <martin.kaupp===tu-berlin.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 11:23:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sent to CCL by: Martin Kaupp [martin.kaupp-$-tu-berlin.de]
Dear Tom,
For a mathematical explanation, look at the solution of the radial
differential equation for the hydrogen atom, which provides products of
associated Laguerre polynomials and an exponential as solutions. In the
derivation you have to solve some recursion equations, which lead to the
condition n-l-1 >= 0 (or l <= n-1). These mathematical conditions are
indeed related to the radial and angular nodes in the solutions (and to
the required orthogonality of the eigenfunctions of a Hermitian
operator), mentioned by Jan. This translates then to many-electron
atoms, which still have the same angular solutions and modified radial
ones, which still have the same nodal relationships. You can find the
derivations for the hydrogen atom in many text books on quantum
mechanics, e.g. in the appendix of Atkins/Freedman.
Many regards, Martin
Am 23.12.2020 um 09:46 schrieb Jan Halborg Jensen jhjensen**chem.ku.dk:
> Sent to CCL by: Jan Halborg Jensen [jhjensen~!~chem.ku.dk]
> Dear Tom
>
> One way to think about it is that the principal quantum number n is related to the number of nodes of the AO: number of nodes = n-1. The minimum number of nodes in a d-orbital is 2 (you can’t have a d-orbital shape without 2 nodes). So the minimum value of n for d-orbitals is 3.
>
> So why is the number of nodes related to n? One way to think about n, at least for the H atom, is in terms of the orbital energies: orbitals with the same energy have the same n. In other words the energy of the electron is a function of the number of nodes. The nodes increase the energy because they cause the electron to be further away from the nucleus (on average). The nodes are there to keep the orbitals orthogonal so that the Pauli exclusion (i.e. anti-symmetry) principle is satisfied, among other things.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best regards, Jan
>
>> On 23 Dec 2020, at 04.53, Thomas Manz thomasamanz++gmail.com <owner-chemistry::ccl.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> I am looking for a reference to cite that provides mathematical details as to why a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand the traditional pat answer that n >= L+1 where L is angular quantum number ( L = 0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum number. I would like to understand the mathematical and physical reason for this, preferably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a good reference for this?
>>
>> Although the above question seems "simple", I believe there more to it than first meets the eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the nucleons inside an atomic nucleus. In nuclear models (e.g., nuclear shell model), for example, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why does such an orbital exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both are spin 1/2 fermions? The physical interaction (coupling regime) must have something to do with whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particular fermion. In the case of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that two nucleons practically pair to make an effective boson; however, it is my understanding that for nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon can still exist in orbitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is substantial for nucleons, but also substantial for electrons in heavy elements.
>>
>> I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights as well references to understand what is going on here.
>>
>> Sincerest thanks,
>>
>> Tom Manz>
>
--
Prof. Dr. Martin Kaupp
Technische Universität Berlin
Institut für Chemie
Theoretische Chemie
Sekr. C 7
Strasse des 17. Juni 135
D-10623 Berlin
Gebäude C, Ostflügel, EG, Raum C 78
Telefon +49 30 314 79682
Telefax +49 30 314 21075
email: martin.kaupp-x-tu-berlin.de
www: http://www.quantenchemie.tu-berlin.de/
From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Dec 23 19:17:01 2020
From: "Jo o Brand o jbrandao^-^ualg.pt" <owner-chemistry]|[server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: why is there no 2d subshell in atoms
Message-Id: <-54250-201223191217-31429-TgP+mlqmobB3Synu7uIEhQ]|[server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: "Jo o Brand o" <jbrandao[a]ualg.pt>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 19:12:12 -0500
Sent to CCL by: "Jo o Brand o" [jbrandao{}ualg.pt]
Dear Tom Manz
It comes from the resolution of the Schrdinger equation for the hydrogen atom, that you can find in any quantum mechanics book. First we solve the angular part and get the l- quantum number. Then, when solving the radial part, the radial function and the n values depend on the angular momentum quantum number. There, this restriction appears naturally.
Best regards
Joo Brando
Dep. de Qumica e Farmcia
Universidade do Algarve
8005-139 Faro, Portugal
e-mail: jbrandao()ualg.pt
From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Wed Dec 23 21:56:00 2020
From: "William F. Polik polik[]hope.edu" <owner-chemistry[]server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: why is there no 2d subshell in atoms
Message-Id: <-54251-201223112628-20250-vPl+R4nzmpiZZ97CD6T/2A[]server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: "William F. Polik" <polik^hope.edu>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------EDA0720F1AF67F05E6D7FB3F"
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 11:26:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sent to CCL by: "William F. Polik" [polik,hope.edu]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------EDA0720F1AF67F05E6D7FB3F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Tom,
The node argument very appealing. Here is a mathematical basis for it.
Mathematically, the 1-electron Coulombic (eg, H-atom) wavefunction has:
* l angular nodes that arise from the associated Legendre function
Y^m_l (a polynomial of order l) in the angular part of the wavefunction
* n-l-1 radial nodes that arise from the associated Legendre function
L^(2l+1)_(n+l) (a polynomial of order n-l-1) in the radial part of the
wavefunction
If l > n-1 (eg, 2d for which n=2 and l=2) , then the associated Legendre
function L^(2l+1)_(n+l) is undefined (qualitatively it would have a
negative number of nodes).
So it is the Legendre function arising from the 1-electron Coulombic
potential wavefunction that enforces l < n.
One could probably reference almost any quantum mechanical or quantum
chemistry textbook that provides sufficient detail into the derivation
of the H-atom wavefunction for this.
Will
On 12/23/20 3:46 AM, Jan Halborg Jensen jhjensen**chem.ku.dk wrote:
> Sent to CCL by: Jan Halborg Jensen [jhjensen~!~chem.ku.dk]
> Dear Tom
>
> One way to think about it is that the principal quantum number n is related to the number of nodes of the AO: number of nodes = n-1. The minimum number of nodes in a d-orbital is 2 (you can’t have a d-orbital shape without 2 nodes). So the minimum value of n for d-orbitals is 3.
>
> So why is the number of nodes related to n? One way to think about n, at least for the H atom, is in terms of the orbital energies: orbitals with the same energy have the same n. In other words the energy of the electron is a function of the number of nodes. The nodes increase the energy because they cause the electron to be further away from the nucleus (on average). The nodes are there to keep the orbitals orthogonal so that the Pauli exclusion (i.e. anti-symmetry) principle is satisfied, among other things.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best regards, Jan
>
>> On 23 Dec 2020, at 04.53, Thomas Manz thomasamanz++gmail.com <owner-chemistry::ccl.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> I am looking for a reference to cite that provides mathematical details as to why a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand the traditional pat answer that n >= L+1 where L is angular quantum number ( L = 0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum number. I would like to understand the mathematical and physical reason for this, preferably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a good reference for this?
>>
>> Although the above question seems "simple", I believe there more to it than first meets the eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the nucleons inside an atomic nucleus. In nuclear models (e.g., nuclear shell model), for example, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why does such an orbital exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both are spin 1/2 fermions? The physical interaction (coupling regime) must have something to do with whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particular fermion. In the case of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that two nucleons practically pair to make an effective boson; however, it is my understanding that for nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon can still exist in orbitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is substantial for nucleons, but also substantial for electrons in heavy elements.
>>
>> I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights as well references to understand what is going on here.
>>
>> Sincerest thanks,
>>
>> Tom Manz>
>
> .
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. William F. Polik
Hofma Professor of Chemistry
Department of Chemistry
Schaap Science Center 2122
Hope College
35 East 12th Street
Holland, MI 49422-9000
USA
polik-x-hope.edu
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik <http://www.chem.hope.edu/%7Epolik>
tel: (616) 395-7639
fax: (616) 395-7118
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------EDA0720F1AF67F05E6D7FB3F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Tom,<br>
<br>
The node argument very appealing. Here is a mathematical basis for
it.<br>
<br>
Mathematically, the 1-electron Coulombic (eg, H-atom) wavefunction
has:<br>
* l angular nodes that arise from the associated Legendre function
Y^m_l (a polynomial of order l) in the angular part of the
wavefunction<br>
* n-l-1 radial nodes that arise from the associated Legendre
function L^(2l+1)_(n+l) (a polynomial of order n-l-1) in the radial
part of the wavefunction<br>
<br>
If l > n-1 (eg, 2d for which n=2 and l=2) , then the associated
Legendre function L^(2l+1)_(n+l) is undefined (qualitatively it
would have a negative number of nodes).<br>
<br>
So it is the Legendre function arising from the 1-electron Coulombic
potential wavefunction that enforces l < n.<br>
<br>
One could probably reference almost any quantum mechanical or
quantum chemistry textbook that provides sufficient detail into the
derivation of the H-atom wavefunction for this.<br>
<br>
Will<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/23/20 3:46 AM, Jan Halborg Jensen
jhjensen**chem.ku.dk wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:-id%233dr-54245-201223034647-27713-WHMdOwdiAMMuaDJQp+4Mzg-x-server.ccl.net">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Sent to CCL by: Jan Halborg Jensen [jhjensen~!~chem.ku.dk]
Dear Tom
One way to think about it is that the principal quantum number n is related to the number of nodes of the AO: number of nodes = n-1. The minimum number of nodes in a d-orbital is 2 (you can’t have a d-orbital shape without 2 nodes). So the minimum value of n for d-orbitals is 3.
So why is the number of nodes related to n? One way to think about n, at least for the H atom, is in terms of the orbital energies: orbitals with the same energy have the same n. In other words the energy of the electron is a function of the number of nodes. The nodes increase the energy because they cause the electron to be further away from the nucleus (on average). The nodes are there to keep the orbitals orthogonal so that the Pauli exclusion (i.e. anti-symmetry) principle is satisfied, among other things.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Jan
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 23 Dec 2020, at 04.53, Thomas Manz thomasamanz++gmail.com <owner-chemistry::ccl.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I am looking for a reference to cite that provides mathematical details as to why a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand the traditional pat answer that n >= L+1 where L is angular quantum number ( L = 0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum number. I would like to understand the mathematical and physical reason for this, preferably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a good reference for this?
Although the above question seems "simple", I believe there more to it than first meets the eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the nucleons inside an atomic nucleus. In nuclear models (e.g., nuclear shell model), for example, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why does such an orbital exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both are spin 1/2 fermions? The physical interaction (coupling regime) must have something to do with whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particular fermion. In the case of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that two nucleons practically pair to make an effective boson; however, it is my understanding that for nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon can still exist in orbitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is substantial for nucleons, but also substantial for electrons in heavy elements.
I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights as well references to understand what is going on here.
Sincerest thanks,
Tom Manz
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""E-mail to subscribers: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CHEMISTRY-x-ccl.net">CHEMISTRY-x-ccl.net</a> or use:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message">http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message</a>
E-mail to administrators: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CHEMISTRY-REQUEST-x-ccl.net">CHEMISTRY-REQUEST-x-ccl.net</a> or use
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message">http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message</a<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml">http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml</a>
Before posting, check wait time at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ccl.net">http://www.ccl.net</a>
Job: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ccl.net/jobs">http://www.ccl.net/jobs</a>
Conferences: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/">http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/</a>
Search Messages: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml">http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml</a<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt">http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt</a>
RTFI: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/">http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/</a>
.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<title></title>
<hr width="100%" size="2">Dr. William F. Polik<br>
Hofma Professor of Chemistry<br>
<br>
Department of Chemistry<br>
Schaap Science Center 2122<br>
Hope College<br>
35 East 12th Street<br>
Holland, MI 49422-9000<br>
USA<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:polik-x-hope.edu">polik-x-hope.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://www.chem.hope.edu/%7Epolik">http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik</a><br>
tel: (616) 395-7639<br>
fax: (616) 395-7118<br>
<hr width="100%" size="2">
</div>
</body>
</html>
--------------EDA0720F1AF67F05E6D7FB3F--