Why don't all electrons contribute to total orbital angular momentum of an atom?Quantization of orbital...
Inquiring about the possibility of a job
Is there any problem with this camera not having a lens cover?
Is it bad to describe a character long after their introduction?
How is this practical and ancient scene shot?
Way to find when system health file is rolling over
Why are there so many religions and gods?
How to fix a dry solder pin in BGA package?
Who are these Discworld wizards from this picture?
Can I create a CAA record for all sub-domains
Miss Toad and her frogs
Should I share with a new service provider a bill from its competitor?
Why does a brace command group need spaces after the opening brace in POSIX Shell Grammar?
Is there a way for presidents to legally extend their terms beyond the maximum of four years?
How can my story take place on Earth without referring to our existing cities and countries?
Automatically convert a number to use the correct SI unit prefix
Are there any features that help with the roll to avoid the destruction of a Wand of Fireballs when using the last charge?
Reverse of diffraction
What's the safest way to inform a new user of their password on my web site?
Could human civilization live 150 years in a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier colony without resorting to mass killing/ cannibalism?
I'm reinstalling my Linux desktop, how do I keep SSH logins working?
What is "oversubscription" in Networking?
What is the highest number of sneak attacks that a Pure/High Level Rogue (Level 17+) can make in one round?
Can you sign using a digital signature itself?
What does grep -v "grep" mean and do?
Why don't all electrons contribute to total orbital angular momentum of an atom?
Quantization of orbital angular momentumFor 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 shellHow to prepare the silver atoms in Stern–Gerlach experiment with total angular momentum $j_z=+frac{1}{2}hbar,-frac{1}{2}hbar$?Total Orbital Angular Momentum and its relation to $M_L$ & SymmetryOrbital 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 quantization
New contributor
$endgroup$
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 quantization
New contributor
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
9 hours ago
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♦
8 hours ago
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 quantization
New contributor
$endgroup$
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 quantization
quantum-mechanics angular-momentum quantization
New contributor
New contributor
edited 8 hours ago
lineage
1025 bronze badges
1025 bronze badges
New contributor
asked 9 hours ago
ROBIN RAJROBIN RAJ
312 bronze badges
312 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
2
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
9 hours ago
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♦
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
9 hours ago
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♦
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
9 hours ago
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♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
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♦
8 hours ago
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:
$$|uparrow{}rangle text{ & } |downarrow{}rangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac{1}{2}$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac{1}{sqrt{2}}left(|uparrow{}downarrow{}rangle - |downarrow{}uparrow{}rangleright)$$
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 $J=frac{1}{2}$, 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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommand{ket}[1]{left|{#1}right>}$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ket{uparrowdownarrow}$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
38 mins ago
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
});
}
});
ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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:
$$|uparrow{}rangle text{ & } |downarrow{}rangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac{1}{2}$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac{1}{sqrt{2}}left(|uparrow{}downarrow{}rangle - |downarrow{}uparrow{}rangleright)$$
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 $J=frac{1}{2}$, 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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommand{ket}[1]{left|{#1}right>}$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ket{uparrowdownarrow}$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
38 mins ago
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:
$$|uparrow{}rangle text{ & } |downarrow{}rangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac{1}{2}$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac{1}{sqrt{2}}left(|uparrow{}downarrow{}rangle - |downarrow{}uparrow{}rangleright)$$
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 $J=frac{1}{2}$, 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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommand{ket}[1]{left|{#1}right>}$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ket{uparrowdownarrow}$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
38 mins ago
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:
$$|uparrow{}rangle text{ & } |downarrow{}rangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac{1}{2}$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac{1}{sqrt{2}}left(|uparrow{}downarrow{}rangle - |downarrow{}uparrow{}rangleright)$$
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 $J=frac{1}{2}$, 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:
$$|uparrow{}rangle text{ & } |downarrow{}rangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac{1}{2}$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac{1}{sqrt{2}}left(|uparrow{}downarrow{}rangle - |downarrow{}uparrow{}rangleright)$$
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 $J=frac{1}{2}$, 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 8 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
TEHTEH
3567 bronze badges
3567 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommand{ket}[1]{left|{#1}right>}$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ket{uparrowdownarrow}$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
38 mins ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a$providecommand{ket}[1]{left|{#1}right>}$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use$ketuparrow$
,$ket{uparrowdownarrow}$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just$|uparrowrangle$
.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
38 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a
$providecommand{ket}[1]{left|{#1}right>}$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$
, $ket{uparrowdownarrow}$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$
.$endgroup$
– rob♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a
$providecommand{ket}[1]{left|{#1}right>}$
somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$
, $ket{uparrowdownarrow}$
, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$
.$endgroup$
– rob♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
what about the orbital, Spin and total angular momentum of a Nitrogen atom
$endgroup$
– ROBIN RAJ
38 mins ago
add a comment |
ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
2
$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
9 hours ago
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♦
8 hours ago