DOCSLIB.ORG

Pauli Exclusion Principle and Multimulti--Electronelectron Atoms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Quantum Mechanics and Atomic Physics Lecture 21: Pauli Exclusion Principle and MultiMulti--electronelectron atoms http://www. physics. rutgers. edu/ugrad/361 Prof. Sean Oh Last time : Fine structure constant Electron mass : mc2 : ~0.5 MeV Bohifdhr energies: of order α2mc2 : ~10 eV Fine structure: of order α4mc2 : ~10--44 eV Lamb shift: of order α5mc2 : ~10--66 eV 4 2 Hyperfine splitting: of order (m/mp)α mc ::: ~10--66 eV Multi-Electron Atoms Atoms with 2 or more electrons have a new feature: Electrons are indistinguishable! ΨA(1) There is no way to tell them apart! Any measurable quantity (probability , Ψ (2) expectation value, etc.) must not B depend on which electron is labeled 1, 2, etc. S.E. for Multi-electron atoms Let’s consider two electrons in Helium with coordinates: The total Hamiltonian operator for this system is 1 2 So the Schrodinger equation is: S.E. for Multi-electron atoms The total potential Vtot has 3 contributions: 1. V between electron 1 and the nucleus 2. V between electron 2 and the nucleus 3. V between electron 1 and electron 2 For now, let’s consider only #1 and #2 So, Note that the potential function is the same for both electrons S.E. for Multi-electron atoms We get the usual separation of variables Each Ψ will depend on quantum numbers n, ll , mll , ms So, A and B stand for the particular sets of quantum numbers So, let’s call ΨA(1) eigenfunction for electron #1 and has the quantum numbers symbolized by A . S.E. for Multi-electron atoms So, total eigenfunction solution is: And with this separability assumption, the S. E. becomes: This equation suggests that we write the total energy E as: S.E. for Multi-electron atoms So, we can separate this neatly into two independent expressions: ((yThis can be extended to any number of non-non- interacting particles!) Exchange electrons So, we said that the total eigenfunction is: If we exchange electrons 1 and 2 we get: But the first equation gives: And the second (exchanged) equation gives: But these two probabilities are different! This is not acceptable! This means that the expressions for Ψtot above are not valid solutions! Exchange electrons Since: We need this to be satisfied: So the total eigenfunction: + sign: Symmetric eigenfunction ΨSymm --sisiggyn: Anitsymmetric eig enfunction ΨAnti Symmetric and Antisymmetric ΨSymm and ΨAiAnti are degenerate! Same energy They exhibit “exchange degeneracy” They have t he r ig ht propert ies: Note 1/√2 is for normalization, assuming that Ψtot is normalized: Pauli Exclusion Principle Principle was formulated by Wolfgang Pauli in 1925. “Weak form ”: In an atom, no two electrons can be in the same quantum state, i .e . the same set of quantum numbers: n, ll , mll , ms Pauli Exclusion Principle Suppose electrons 1 and 2 are in the same quantum state A . Then: So, ΨSymm permits 2 electrons in the same state. So, ΨSymm violates the Pauli exclusion principle ΨAnti obeys the P auli excl usi on pri nci pl e. Pauli Exclusion Principle “Strong” form of Pauli Exclusion Principle: A multimulti--electronelectron system must have an antisymmetric total eifigenfunct ion. “Strong” because it also incorporates indistinguishability. All particles of half-integer spin (1/2, 3/2, …) have antisymmetric total eigenfunctions and are called “Fermions”, obeying FermiFermi--DiracDirac statistics Electrons, protons, neutrons All particles of integer spin (0, 1, 2, …) have symmetric total eigenfunctions, and are called “Bosons”, obeying BoseBose-- Einstein statistics . Photons, alpha, W and Z particles Required for Bosons Ψtot ∝ΨA (1)ΨB (2)± ΨA (2)ΨB (1) Required for Fermions Helium Example 4 Normal Helium ( 2 He) Even number of spin 1/2 constituents 2 protons , 2 neutrons and 2 electrons Is a Boson 3 Helium-3(3 ( 2 He) 2 protons, 1 neutrons, 2 electrons Is a FrFerm ion Generally, Even number sum of protons+neutrons+electrons Î Boson Odd number sum Î Fermion Total Fermion Eigenfunction So,,,g for Fermion, total eigenfunction must be antisymmetric Can write: So, Ψ(space) and Ψ(spin) must have opposite symmetry idfin order for ΨAnti to bibe antisymmetr ic We had used A and B as abbreviations for particular sets of n , ll , mll , ms Now let’s use a and b as abbreviations for particular sets of n, ll , mll i.e. just the space part Space and Spin Eigenfunctions The space wavefunctions are analogous to RΘΦ for Hydrogen For spins, there is no spatial wavefunction, so Symbolically, Spin Eigenfunctions Example: But this does not have definite symmetry: So, the antisymmetric χ, corresponding to ΨSymm(space) (singlet state): The symmetric χ, corresponding to ΨAnti(space); there are three ways to do it (triplet state): ( +1/2,+1/2 ) ( -1/2,-1/2 ) Spin Angular Momentum In a two electron atom (Helium) the spin angulrmmlar momen tmtum o fthtf the two el ectr ons coupl e to give the total spin: But what is s’? Spin Angular Momentum If s’=0, ms’ = 0 only, and this is the singlet state, which is antisymmetric. We have opposite spins, and S’=0 If s’=1, ms’ = -1,-1, 0, +1, and this is why we get the triplet state which is symmetric. We hlllihave parallel spins Parallel Spins For parallel spins: ss1’=1 triplet state in Helium (called OrthoheliumOrthohelium)) χ symmetric Ψ(space) antisymmetricantisymmetric.. Suppose electrons get close, so a=b (same spatial quantum numbers): Low probability for electrons to have similar coordinates ParallelParallel--spinspin electron repel each other, over and above the Coulomb repulsion. This “exchange” force mainly reflects the exclusion principle Antiparallel Spins For antiparallel spins: s’0’=0 Singlet state in Helium (called Parahelium)Parahelium) χ antisymmetric Ψ(space) symmetric Suppose electrons get close, so a=b (same spatial quantum numbers): This is large, so antiparall el --spspiltin electrons attract each other via the “exchange” force. Example Construct total ( spatial+spin) ground state electron configuration of a Helium atom using the spatial hydrogenic wavefunction notation of Example Construct total ( spatial+spin) first excited state configuration of a Helium atom using the spatial hydrogenic wavefunction If you consider Coulomb repulsion between electrons, will the first excited state be in a singlet state ((paraheliumparahelium)) or in a triplet state (orthohelium)? Example If we put 5 electrons (fermions!) in an infinite square well, what is the ground state energy? Recall the energies for an infinite square well are: n2π 2 2 π 2 2 E = h = n2E , where E = h n 2mL2 1 1 2mL2 Since electrons are fermions, 2 electrons will populate n=1, 2 in n=2,,, and 1 in n=3. So, the ground state energy of this system is: E = 2 ⋅(E1 )+ 2 ⋅(4E1) +1⋅(9E1 ) =19E1 What if we put 5 bosons in the well? All 5 bosons can go into n=1! So ground state energy is E=5E1 Example For two electrons in an infinite potential well, construct the total wavefunction of the ground state. FliifiiilllFor two electrons in an infinite potential well, construct total wavefunctions of the first excited state, wihith an d w ihithout cons iderat ion o f t he electronelectron--electronelectron Coulomb potential Summary/Announcements Next time: MultiMulti--electronselectrons HW 12 will be posted on Nov. 30th (Wednesday). There will be a quiz next class (30th) .
Recommended publications
  • Lecture 32 Relevant Sections in Text: §3.7, 3.9 Total Angular Momentum

    Lecture 32 Relevant Sections in Text: §3.7, 3.9 Total Angular Momentum

    Physics 6210/Spring 2008/Lecture 32 Lecture 32 Relevant sections in text: x3.7, 3.9 Total Angular Momentum Eigenvectors How are the total angular momentum eigenvectors related to the original product eigenvectors (eigenvectors of Lz and Sz)? We will sketch the construction and give the results. Keep in mind that the general theory of angular momentum tells us that, for a 1 given l, there are only two values for j, namely, j = l ± 2. Begin with the eigenvectors of total angular momentum with the maximum value of angular momentum: 1 1 1 jj = l; j = ; j = l + ; m = l + i: 1 2 2 2 j 2 Given j1 and j2, there is only one linearly independent eigenvector which has the appro- priate eigenvalue for Jz, namely 1 1 jj = l; j = ; m = l; m = i; 1 2 2 1 2 2 so we have 1 1 1 1 1 jj = l; j = ; j = l + ; m = l + i = jj = l; j = ; m = l; m = i: 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 To get the eigenvectors with lower eigenvalues of Jz we can apply the ladder operator J− = L− + S− to this ket and normalize it. In this way we get expressions for all the kets 1 1 1 1 1 jj = l; j = 1=2; j = l + ; m i; m = −l − ; −l + ; : : : ; l − ; l + : 1 2 2 j j 2 2 2 2 The details can be found in the text. 1 1 Next, we consider j = l − 2 for which the maximum mj value is mj = l − 2.
  • Singlet/Triplet State Anti/Aromaticity of Cyclopentadienylcation: Sensitivity to Substituent Effect

    Singlet/Triplet State Anti/Aromaticity of Cyclopentadienylcation: Sensitivity to Substituent Effect

    Article Singlet/Triplet State Anti/Aromaticity of CyclopentadienylCation: Sensitivity to Substituent Effect Milovan Stojanovi´c 1, Jovana Aleksi´c 1 and Marija Baranac-Stojanovi´c 2,* 1 Institute of Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy, Center for Chemistry, University of Belgrade, Njegoševa 12, P.O. Box 173, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (J.A.) 2 Faculty of Chemistry, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 12-16, P.O. Box 158, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +381-11-3336741 Abstract: It is well known that singlet state aromaticity is quite insensitive to substituent effects, in the case of monosubstitution. In this work, we use density functional theory (DFT) calculations to examine the sensitivity of triplet state aromaticity to substituent effects. For this purpose, we chose the singlet state antiaromatic cyclopentadienyl cation, antiaromaticity of which reverses to triplet state aromaticity, conforming to Baird’s rule. The extent of (anti)aromaticity was evaluated by using structural (HOMA), magnetic (NICS), energetic (ISE), and electronic (EDDBp) criteria. We find that the extent of triplet state aromaticity of monosubstituted cyclopentadienyl cations is weaker than the singlet state aromaticity of benzene and is, thus, slightly more sensitive to substituent effects. As an addition to the existing literature data, we also discuss substituent effects on singlet state antiaromaticity of cyclopentadienyl cation. Citation: Stojanovi´c,M.; Aleksi´c,J.; Baranac-Stojanovi´c,M. Keywords: antiaromaticity; aromaticity; singlet state; triplet state; cyclopentadienyl cation; substituent Singlet/Triplet State effect Anti/Aromaticity of CyclopentadienylCation: Sensitivity to Substituent Effect.
  • Meson-Exchange Forces and Medium Polarization in Finite Nuclei

    Meson-Exchange Forces and Medium Polarization in Finite Nuclei

    —11005 MESON-EXCHANGE FORCES AND MEDIUM POLARIZATION IN FINITE NUCLEI a) 15 10 x/ r\ o 10 O W. Hengeveld MESON-EXCHANGE FORCES AND MEDIUM POLARIZATION IN FINITE NUCLEI Free University Press is an imprint of: VU BoekhandeUUHgeverij b.v. De Boelalaan 1105 1061 HV Amsterdam The Netherlands ISBN 90-8250-140-3 CIP © W. HengevekJ, Amsterdam, 1966. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author. VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT TE AMSTERDAM MESON-EXCHANGE FORCES AND MEDIUM POLARIZATION IN FINITE NUCLEI ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor in de wiskunde en natuurwetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus dr. P.J.D. Drenth, hoogleraar in de faculteit der sociale wetenschappen, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 1 mei 1986 te 15.30 uur in het hoofdgebouw der universiteit. De Boelelaan 1105 door WILLEM HENGEVELD geboren te Woubrugge # Free University Press Amsterdam 1986 Promotor : prof. dr. E. Boeker Copromotor: dr. K. Allaart Referent : dr. W.H. Dickhoff DANKBETUIGING Zonder de volgende personen zou dit proefschrift niet geschreven of gedrukt zijn: Klaas Allaart worstelde de verschillende onleesbare eerste versies door. Zijn bijdrage aan de presentatie was, in alle opzichten, onmisbaar. Wim Dickhoff gaf niet alleen de grote lijn maar ook de details alle aandacht. Zijn onwrikbare geloof in de mogelijkheden van een formele benadering van kernstructuur, heeft de inhoud van dit proefschrift voor een groot deel bepaald.
  • Quantum Statistics: Is There an Effective Fermion Repulsion Or Boson Attraction? W

    Quantum Statistics: Is There an Effective Fermion Repulsion Or Boson Attraction? W

    Quantum statistics: Is there an effective fermion repulsion or boson attraction? W. J. Mullin and G. Blaylock Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 ͑Received 13 February 2003; accepted 16 May 2003͒ Physicists often claim that there is an effective repulsion between fermions, implied by the Pauli principle, and a corresponding effective attraction between bosons. We examine the origins and validity of such exchange force ideas and the areas where they are highly misleading. We propose that explanations of quantum statistics should avoid the idea of an effective force completely, and replace it with more appropriate physical insights, some of which are suggested here. © 2003 American Association of Physics Teachers. ͓DOI: 10.1119/1.1590658͔ ␺ ͒ϭ ͒ Ϫ␣ Ϫ ϩ ͒2 I. INTRODUCTION ͑x1 ,x2 ,t C͕f ͑x1 ,x2 exp͓ ͑x1 vt a Ϫ␤͑x ϩvtϪa͒2͔Ϫ f ͑x ,x ͒ The Pauli principle states that no two fermions can have 2 2 1 ϫ Ϫ␣ Ϫ ϩ ͒2Ϫ␤ ϩ Ϫ ͒2 the same quantum numbers. The origin of this law is the exp͓ ͑x2 vt a ͑x1 vt a ͔͖, required antisymmetry of the multi-fermion wavefunction. ͑1͒ Most physicists have heard or read a shorthand way of ex- pressing the Pauli principle, which says something analogous where x1 and x2 are the particle coordinates, f (x1 ,x2) ϭ ͓ Ϫ ប͔ to fermions being ‘‘antisocial’’ and bosons ‘‘gregarious.’’ Of- exp imv(x1 x2)/ , C is a time-dependent factor, and the ten this intuitive approach involves the statement that there is packet width parameters ␣ and ␤ are unequal.
  • Consistent Treatment of Pion Exchange Force and Meson Versus Quark Dynamics in the N Ucleon-Nucleon Interaction

    Consistent Treatment of Pion Exchange Force and Meson Versus Quark Dynamics in the N Ucleon-Nucleon Interaction

    Aust. J. Phys., 1993, 46, 737-50 Consistent Treatment of Pion Exchange Force and Meson versus Quark Dynamics in the N ucleon-Nucleon Interaction G. Q. Liu A and A. W. Thomas B Department of Physics and Mathematical Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, S.A. 5005, Australia. A E-mail: [email protected]. BE-mail: [email protected]. Abstract To distinguish explicit quark effects from meson exchange in the NN interaction, it is necessary to splice the long-range meson exchange forces and short-distance dynamics due to quarks. However, in most quark model studies the short-range part of the pion exchange is usually treated differently, which makes it difficult to get a uniform picture of the short-range dynamics. We make a comparison between meson exchange and quark-gluon dynamics using the same pion exchange potential based on a quark-pion coupling model. The roles of vector meson exchange and gluon exchange in the NN interaction are compared by calculating NN phase parameters. It is shown that, with this consistent one-pion exchange force, the vector meson exchange gives a better fit to the data. This suggests that non-perturbative mechanisms responsible for meson exchange may need more careful handling to supplement the usual one-gluon exchange mechanism in describing the NN interaction. 1. Introduction The extent to which the constituent quark model can be used to describe the NN interaction is still under debate. This is manifested by the various quark-based models that provide different pictures for the short-range NN force (for recent reviews see MyhreI' and Wroldsen 1988; Shimizu 1989).
  • Colour Structures in Supersymmetric QCD

    Colour Structures in Supersymmetric QCD

    Colour structures in Supersymmetric QCD Jorrit van den Boogaard August 23, 2010 In this thesis we will explain a novel method for calculating the colour struc- tures of Quantum ChromoDynamical processes, or QCD prosesses for short, with the eventual goal to apply such knowledge to Supersymmetric theory. QCD is the theory of the strong interactions, among quarks and gluons. From a Supersymmetric viewpoint, something we will explain in the first chapter, it is interesting to know as much as possible about QCD theory, for it will also tell us something about this Supersymmetric theory. Colour structures in particular, which give the strength of the strong force, can tell us something about the interactions with the Supersymmetric sector. There are a multitude of different ways to calculate these colour structures. The one described here will make use of diagrammatic methods and is therefore somewhat more user friendly. We therefore hope it will see more use in future calculations regarding these processes. We do warn the reader for the level of knowledge required to fully grasp the subject. Although this thesis is written with students with a bachelor degree in mind, one cannot escape touching somewhat dificult matterial. We have tried to explain things as much as possible in a way which should be clear to the reader. Sometimes however we saw it neccesary to skip some of the finer details of the subject. If one wants to learn more about these hiatuses we suggest looking at the material in the bibliography. For convenience we will use some common conventions in this thesis.
  • Singlet NMR Methodology in Two-Spin-1/2 Systems

    Singlet NMR Methodology in Two-Spin-1/2 Systems

    Singlet NMR Methodology in Two-Spin-1/2 Systems Giuseppe Pileio School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK The author dedicates this work to Prof. Malcolm H. Levitt on the occasion of his 60th birthaday Abstract This paper discusses methodology developed over the past 12 years in order to access and manipulate singlet order in systems comprising two coupled spin- 1/2 nuclei in liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance. Pulse sequences that are valid for different regimes are discussed, and fully analytical proofs are given using different spin dynamics techniques that include product operator methods, the single transition operator formalism, and average Hamiltonian theory. Methods used to filter singlet order from byproducts of pulse sequences are also listed and discussed analytically. The theoretical maximum amplitudes of the transformations achieved by these techniques are reported, together with the results of numerical simulations performed using custom-built simulation code. Keywords: Singlet States, Singlet Order, Field-Cycling, Singlet-Locking, M2S, SLIC, Singlet Order filtration Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Nuclear Singlet States and Singlet Order 4 2.1 The spin Hamiltonian and its eigenstates . 4 2.2 Population operators and spin order . 6 2.3 Maximum transformation amplitude . 7 2.4 Spin Hamiltonian in single transition operator formalism . 8 2.5 Relaxation properties of singlet order . 9 2.5.1 Coherent dynamics . 9 2.5.2 Incoherent dynamics . 9 2.5.3 Central relaxation property of singlet order . 10 2.6 Singlet order and magnetic equivalence . 11 3 Methods for manipulating singlet order in spin-1/2 pairs 13 3.1 Field Cycling .
  • The Statistical Interpretation of Entangled States B

    The Statistical Interpretation of Entangled States B

    The Statistical Interpretation of Entangled States B. C. Sanctuary Department of Chemistry, McGill University 801 Sherbrooke Street W Montreal, PQ, H3A 2K6, Canada Abstract Entangled EPR spin pairs can be treated using the statistical ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics. As such the singlet state results from an ensemble of spin pairs each with an arbitrary axis of quantization. This axis acts as a quantum mechanical hidden variable. If the spins lose coherence they disentangle into a mixed state. Whether or not the EPR spin pairs retain entanglement or disentangle, however, the statistical ensemble interpretation resolves the EPR paradox and gives a mechanism for quantum “teleportation” without the need for instantaneous action-at-a-distance. Keywords: Statistical ensemble, entanglement, disentanglement, quantum correlations, EPR paradox, Bell’s inequalities, quantum non-locality and locality, coincidence detection 1. Introduction The fundamental questions of quantum mechanics (QM) are rooted in the philosophical interpretation of the wave function1. At the time these were first debated, covering the fifty or so years following the formulation of QM, the arguments were based primarily on gedanken experiments2. Today the situation has changed with numerous experiments now possible that can guide us in our search for the true nature of the microscopic world, and how The Infamous Boundary3 to the macroscopic world is breached. The current view is based upon pivotal experiments, performed by Aspect4 showing that quantum mechanics is correct and Bell’s inequalities5 are violated. From this the non-local nature of QM became firmly entrenched in physics leading to other experiments, notably those demonstrating that non-locally is fundamental to quantum “teleportation”.
  • Phys 487 Discussion 4 – Symmetrization and the Exchange

    Phys 487 Discussion 4 – Symmetrization and the Exchange

    Phys 487 Discussion 4 – Symmetrization and the Exchange Force It is considered a postulate (another axiom!) of quantum mechanics that the wavefunction for n identical particles must be either symmetric (S,+) or antisymmetric (A,–) under the exchange of any two particles: ! ! ! ! (r ,r ) (r ,r ) if particle 1 and particle 2 are indistinguishable. ψ 2 1 = ±ψ 1 2 Problem 1 : Fermi, Bose, and Pauli There is one more part to the postulate, which we mentioned at the ver end of last semester. ! ! ! ! • 2-Fermion wavefunctions are Antisymmetric under exchange → ψ (r ,r ) = –ψ (r ,r ) . !2 !1 !1 !2 • 2-Boson wavefunctions are Symmetric under exchange (r ,r ) (r ,r ) . → ψ 2 1 = +ψ 1 2 where • a Fermion is a particle with half-integer spin (e.g. electrons, protons, neutrons) • a Boson is a particle with integer spin (e.g. photons, many nuclei) (a) What if we have a system composed of one of each, e.g. a spin-1 deuterium nucleus (boson) and a spin-½ electron (fermion)? What is the symmetry of that under exchange? (Hint: No calculations required, and you will laugh when you realize the answer.) (b) Show that it is impossible for two fermions to occupy exactly the same state: show that you cannot build a ! ! wavefunction (r ,r ) with the necessary symmetry properties when particle 1 and particle 2 have the exact ψ 1 2 same individual wavefunctions. FYI: This result is the Pauli Exclusion Principle. It is an immediate consequence of the anti-symmetrization requirement on the wavefunctions of indistinguishable fermions, and is essential for understanding the periodic table – i.e.
  • 5.1 Two-Particle Systems

    5.1 Two-Particle Systems

    5.1 Two-Particle Systems We encountered a two-particle system in dealing with the addition of angular momentum. Let's treat such systems in a more formal way. The w.f. for a two-particle system must depend on the spatial coordinates of both particles as @Ψ well as t: Ψ(r1; r2; t), satisfying i~ @t = HΨ, ~2 2 ~2 2 where H = + V (r1; r2; t), −2m1r1 − 2m2r2 and d3r d3r Ψ(r ; r ; t) 2 = 1. 1 2 j 1 2 j R Iff V is independent of time, then we can separate the time and spatial variables, obtaining Ψ(r1; r2; t) = (r1; r2) exp( iEt=~), − where E is the total energy of the system. Let us now make a very fundamental assumption: that each particle occupies a one-particle e.s. [Note that this is often a poor approximation for the true many-body w.f.] The joint e.f. can then be written as the product of two one-particle e.f.'s: (r1; r2) = a(r1) b(r2). Suppose furthermore that the two particles are indistinguishable. Then, the above w.f. is not really adequate since you can't actually tell whether it's particle 1 in state a or particle 2. This indeterminacy is correctly reflected if we replace the above w.f. by (r ; r ) = a(r ) (r ) (r ) a(r ). 1 2 1 b 2 b 1 2 The `plus-or-minus' sign reflects that there are two distinct ways to accomplish this. Thus we are naturally led to consider two kinds of identical particles, which we have come to call `bosons' (+) and `fermions' ( ).
  • Pauli's Principle in Probe Microscopy

    Pauli's Principle in Probe Microscopy

    Chapter 1 Pauli's Principle in Probe Microscopy SP Jarvisy, AM Sweetmany, L Kantorovichz, E McGlynn], and P Moriartyy It appears to be one of the few places in physics where there is a rule which can be stated very simply, but for which no one has found a simple and easy explanation. The explanation is deep down in relativistic quantum mechanics. This probably means that we do not have a complete understanding of the fundamental principle involved.RP Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol III, Chapter 4 (1964) Abstract Exceptionally clear images of intramolecular structure can be attained in dynamic force microscopy through the combination of a passivated tip apex and operation in what has become known as the \Pauli exclusion regime" of the tip-sample interaction. We discuss, from an experimentalist's perspective, a number of aspects of the exclusion principle which underpin this ability to achieve submolecular resolution. Our particular focus is on the origins, history, and interpretation of Pauli's principle in the context of interatomic and intermolecular interactions. Keywords: dynamic force microscopy;non-contact atomic force microscopy; NC-AFM; Pauli exclusion principle; submolecular resolution; intramolecular; single molecule imaging From Imaging and Manipulation of Adsorbates using Dynamic Force Microscopy, Vol V of Advances in Atom and Single Molecule Machines, Springer-Verlag; http://www.springer.com/ series/10425. To be published late 2014. ySchool of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK z Department of Physics, Kings College London, The Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK ] School of Physical Sciences, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland arXiv:1408.1026v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 5 Aug 2014 1 2 SP Jarvis, AM Sweetman, L Kantorovich, E McGlynn, and P Moriarty 1.1 Intramolecular resolution via Pauli exclusion In 2009 the results of a pioneering dynamic force microscopy (DFM1) experiment by Leo Gross and co-workers at IBM Z¨urich were published[1] and revolutionised the field of scanning probe microscopy.
  • Quantum Mechanics

    Quantum Mechanics

    Quantum Mechanics Richard Fitzpatrick Professor of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Intendedaudience................................ 5 1.2 MajorSources .................................. 5 1.3 AimofCourse .................................. 6 1.4 OutlineofCourse ................................ 6 2 Probability Theory 7 2.1 Introduction ................................... 7 2.2 WhatisProbability?.............................. 7 2.3 CombiningProbabilities. ... 7 2.4 Mean,Variance,andStandardDeviation . ..... 9 2.5 ContinuousProbabilityDistributions. ........ 11 3 Wave-Particle Duality 13 3.1 Introduction ................................... 13 3.2 Wavefunctions.................................. 13 3.3 PlaneWaves ................................... 14 3.4 RepresentationofWavesviaComplexFunctions . ....... 15 3.5 ClassicalLightWaves ............................. 18 3.6 PhotoelectricEffect ............................. 19 3.7 QuantumTheoryofLight. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21 3.8 ClassicalInterferenceofLightWaves . ...... 21 3.9 QuantumInterferenceofLight . 22 3.10 ClassicalParticles . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 25 3.11 QuantumParticles............................... 25 3.12 WavePackets .................................. 26 2 QUANTUM MECHANICS 3.13 EvolutionofWavePackets . 29 3.14 Heisenberg’sUncertaintyPrinciple . ........ 32 3.15 Schr¨odinger’sEquation . 35 3.16 CollapseoftheWaveFunction . 36 4 Fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics 39 4.1 Introduction ..................................