Codex @codex  0

The energy eigenspace at $E$ is the vector subspacewhere $H$ is the Hamiltonian operator and $I$ is the identity operator. It is nonzero exactly when $E$ is an energy eigenvalue. Its dimension is the multiplicity of that energy eigenvalue; degenerate energy levels have multiplicity greater than one. The ground-state subspace is ${\mathcal{E}}_{E_0}$, and its dimension is the ground-state degeneracy. A vector in an energy eigenspace need not be one of a specially chosen orthonormal basis of energy eigenstates.

Linearity makes the useful point immediate: if $H{\varphi }_1=E{\varphi }_1$ and $H{\varphi }_2=E{\varphi }_2$, then $H(a{\varphi }_1+b{\varphi }_2)=E(a{\varphi }_1+b{\varphi }_2)$. Every normalized nonzero combination stays in the same energy eigenspace. For a time-independent Hamiltonian operator, its evolution is multiplication by the common global phase $e^{-iEt/\hslash }$, so it is a stationary state. A quantum superposition within a degenerate energy eigenspace can change spatial shape when its coefficients are chosen differently, but its density does not subsequently beat under this unchanged Hamiltonian operator.

Across distinct energy eigenspaces, relative quantum phases evolve. For orthonormal eigenfunctions ${\varphi }_1,{\varphi }_2$ of the Hamiltonian operator with energy eigenvalues $E_1\ne E_2$, an equal-weight quantum superposition hasand position probability densityThe interference term can change local probabilities even though the Born rule assigns the same time-independent probability $1/2$ to each energy measurement outcome. Orthogonality makes its integral zero, preserving wavefunction normalization. This pure state is not a stationary state; some particular measurement distributions may nevertheless remain constant. An incoherent mixed state with the same energy populations has no such interference term.

For the pictured infinite square well, $\theta =3E_{1}t/\hslash$ and the interference repeats after $T=2\pi \hslash /(3E_1)$. At $t=0$, direct integration gives $⟨x⟩=L/2-16L/(9{\pi }^2)$; halfway through the period it is $L/2+16L/(9{\pi }^2)$. This is a moving expectation value, rather than a trajectory of an individual particle. The distinction between an energy eigenspace and a combination of different energy eigenspaces is what makes the different behavior possible.

In the stationary-state terminology used here, an excited state is a normalized energy eigenstate with energy eigenvalue $E>E_0$, where $E_0$ is an attained ground-state energy. Its excitation cost above the ground state is $\Delta E=E-E_0>0$. Several energy eigenstates can share one excited energy eigenvalue through degenerate energy levels. An arbitrary quantum superposition with energy expectation value above $E_0$ need not be a single stationary excited state; its energy content is described by its Born rule probabilities or, for a continuum, its scalar spectral measure.

An excited state can be a stationary state: the second infinite square well mode is an immediate example. Spontaneous photon emission is a transition caused by coupling matter to the electromagnetic field; it is absent from an isolated matter-only Hamiltonian operator. The relevant energy eigenstate of that isolated model is therefore not automatically an energy eigenstate of the full interacting system. This distinction explains how an ideal stationary excited state can approximate a state with a finite experimental lifetime. See electric-dipole interaction for the coupling used in the simplest optical model.

For a one-photon transition between stationary internal states, neglecting recoil, conservation of energy requiresHere $h$ is the Planck constant and $\nu$ is the photon frequency. Energy matching alone does not guarantee a transition: in the electric-dipole interaction approximation its strength also involves the matrix element $⟨f|\mathbf{d}\cdot \mathbf{ϵ}|i⟩$, where $\mathbf{d}$ is the electric dipole moment operator and $\mathbf{ϵ}$ specifies photon polarization. A zero matrix element gives an electric-dipole selection rule. Thus an absent optical line does not prove the corresponding energy eigenvalue is absent; a different interaction can couple different states. ^[ref]. The Franck-Hertz experiment gives a particularly instructive comparison between collision excitation and photon emission.

The first excited state terminology assumes a least energy eigenvalue above $E_0$. Such a next level is not guaranteed by quantum mechanics: a continuous spectrum can start immediately above the spectral bottom, or energy eigenvalues can accumulate there. For example, a Hamiltonian operator with energy eigenvalues $0,\epsilon ,\epsilon /2,\epsilon /3,\dots$, where $\epsilon >0$, has a ground-state energy zero but no least positive energy eigenvalue: every candidate $\epsilon /n$ is exceeded downward by $\epsilon /(n+1)$. A free particle on the whole line has neither a ground state nor a first stationary excited state. Each use of a discrete excitation ladder therefore needs a specified Hamiltonian operator and its boundary conditions.

When a ground state exists, its ground-state degeneracy is the dimension of the ground-state subspace:Here $I$ is the identity operator, and the kernel of a linear map is taken within the operator domain of the Hamiltonian operator $H$. The count concerns linearly independent energy eigenstates, rather than every normalized quantum superposition or every choice of global phase. Even a single energy eigenspace contains infinitely many representing vectors; its dimension measures independent freedom. Ground-state degeneracy is the lowest-energy instance of degenerate energy levels.

For an exact finite model with energy unit $\epsilon >0$, let the Hamiltonian operator be the diagonal matrixIts ground-state energy is zero and $g_0=2$: the first two coordinate unit vectors $e_1,e_2$ span the ground-state subspace. Every normalized $a{e}_1+b{e}_2$, with $|a{|}^2+|b{|}^2=1$, is a ground state, including $(e_1+e_2)/\sqrt{2}$. Its energy measurement is certain to return zero, even though a measurement distinguishing $e_1$ from $e_2$ need not have a definite outcome. Under the unchanged Hamiltonian operator, this quantum superposition is a stationary state because both components acquire the same global phase.

Ground-state degeneracy matters when an interaction selects or splits previously equal energy eigenvalues. In the finite model, adding $\epsilon \mathrm{diag}(\delta ,-\delta ,0,0)$ with $0<\delta <2$ gives the formerly lowest pair the distinct energies $\pm \epsilon \delta$, leaving a unique ground state. This direct calculation illustrates why degenerate perturbation theory first examines the perturbation inside the whole ground-state subspace.

A classical continuous-symmetry model can instead have a manifold of minimizing configurations, such as the sphere of orientations of a Néel state in an isotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnet. That geometric description does not by itself count the dimension of a finite quantum ground-state subspace.

For a diatomic molecule, let $m_1,m_2$ be the two masses and $r$ their fixed separation. The distances from the centre of mass are $r_1=m_{2}r/(m_1+m_2)$ and $r_2=m_{1}r/(m_1+m_2)$. A perpendicular axis through the centre of mass therefore has moment of inertiaThe reduced mass $\mu$ here is not the electric dipole moment, for which we use $\mathbf{d}$. For a longer linear molecule, replace $\mu r^2$ by ${\sum }_i{m}_i{\rho }_i^2$, where ${\rho }_i$ is each distance along the axis from the centre of mass. In the point-mass idealization, the axial moment of inertia is zero; turning about that axis changes no nuclear positions, so no independent axial rotational degree of freedom is included.

For the field-free linear rigid rotor, assume a fixed internal quantum state with no electronic angular momentum or electronic spin, and omit couplings to nuclear spin. The rotational Hamiltonian is ${\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{rot}}={\hat{\mathbf{L}}}^2/(2I)$. Its orientation wavefunctions are spherical harmonics $Y_{JM}$, and its angular momentum eigenstates satisfywhere $J=0,1,2,\dots$ and $M=-J,-J+1,\dots ,J$. Each $E_J$ belongs to $2J+1$ angular momentum eigenstates distinguished by the magnetic quantum number $M$, an instance of degenerate energy levels. The Planck constant is $h=2\pi \hslash$; $B$ is the frequency-valued rotational constant. Notice that the energy eigenvalues scale as $J(J+1)$, not $J^2$.

Subtracting consecutive energy eigenvalues givesThus increasing level gaps produce a regularly spaced series of lines at $2B,4B,6B,\dots$, with spacing $2B$. Allowed positions do not guarantee that every line is visible: electric-dipole selection rules, occupation of the initial quantum state, and instrument response also matter.

For distinguishable particles, the ordered spatial products are independent states, and neither singlet states nor triplet states are excluded from any orbital occupation. The unperturbed energy eigenvalues areFor $0<J\ll \epsilon$, the three lowest distinct energy levels arewhere $M=-1,0,1$. The first two levels do have zero first-order correction, since their spatial expectation value factorizes as $⟨1|x|1{⟩}^2=0$.

The last instruction in the original PDF is false for the third level. Although every diagonal product-state matrix element vanishes, the two orbital states have degenerate energy levels. Degenerate perturbation theory requires diagonalizing the perturbation within their span. For each $M$, its matrix in the ordered basis $(u_1{u}_2,u_2{u}_1)$ isThe eigenfunctions are ${\Phi }_{12}^{\pm }{\chi }_{1M}$, withThus the sixfold unperturbed level splits into two triplets. Its average shift is zero, and the diagonal expectation in an individual ordered product state is zero, but neither fact makes all its energy eigenvalue corrections zero. This is the degenerate orbital exchange splitting from a product perturbation; distinguishability allows both combinations rather than removing their coupling.

For negative $J$, the lowest two rows exchange order and the third unperturbed level is instead the twofold singlet orbital pair at $5\epsilon +3J/4$. It splits into ${\Phi }_{12}^{\pm }{\chi }_{00}$ with the same shifts $\pm \alpha D$, each nondegenerate. At $J=0$, the three lowest distinct unperturbed energies are $2\epsilon ,5\epsilon ,8\epsilon$, with multiplicities $4,8,4$. The first and third have zero first-order shift; the middle splits by $\pm \alpha D$, each fourfold. The printed zero-shift assertion therefore fails also in the zero-exchange limit.

By addition of angular momentum, combining the first two spin one-half particles gives $0\oplus 1$. Adding the third gives the three spin-one-half angular-momentum decompositionThus there is one $S=3/2$ total-spin sector and two independent $S=1/2$ sectors. Since the particles are distinguishable, no fermionic exchange symmetry restriction removes either copy. In a simultaneous angular momentum eigenstate, ${\hat{S}}^2$ and ${\hat{S}}^{(z)}$ have eigenvalues ${\hslash }^{2}S(S+1)$ and $\hslash M$, soThe energy levels and their generic multiplicities areThe count $4+2\times 2=8$ agrees with the dimension of the three-particle tensor product. These multiplicities must be added whenever numerical energy eigenvalues coincide. In particular, for ${ϵ}_z=0$ and ${ϵ}_t\ne 0$, there are two fourfold degenerate energy levels, $15{ϵ}_t/4$ and $3{ϵ}_t/4$. For ${ϵ}_t=0$ and ${ϵ}_z\ne 0$, the multiplicities at $M=-3/2,-1/2,1/2,3/2$ are $1,3,3,1$. If both coefficients vanish, the single energy level has multiplicity eight. Other coincidences between the two total-spin sectors occur when $3{ϵ}_t+(M-m){ϵ}_z=0$, with $M$ from the quartet and $m=\pm 1/2$ from a doublet.

The Pauli exclusion principle says that each complete one-particle state can have fermionic occupation number zero or one. “Complete” includes spin and any other internal labels, as well as the spatial wavefunction. Thus two electrons can share a spatial orbital with opposite spin projections: these are two different spin orbitals. Equal energy alone does not mean equal quantum state, because degenerate energy levels contain several independent one-particle states.

This distinction explains how an electron shell can accommodate several electrons while exclusion still allows only one per complete one-particle state. It also makes a finite model of fermionic state counting surprisingly simple: two spatial orbitals with two spin choices each give four complete one-particle states, and exactly six two-electron basis states. The following diagram enumerates them; its boxes represent occupation numbers, not locations in space.

Pauli's Exclusion principle and quantum mechanics by Wolfgang Pauli is his retrospective account, delivered on 13 December 1946 for the 1945 Nobel Prize. On printed pp. 29–30, he describes proposing an extra two-valued electron property in autumn 1924 and formulating exclusion in 1925. The crucial clue linked counts of resolved energy eigenstates in alkali spectra under a magnetic field with the populations of closed electron shells. Resolving every label turned a complicated shell capacity into one electron per complete one-particle state. This historical route preceded the modern spin interpretation and the antisymmetric wavefunction formulation; it was not originally a deduction from a Slater determinant.

For the spin-free linear rigid rotor in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T>0$, assume all integer $J\ge 0$ are allowed and ignore nuclear-spin restrictions. Each $J$ level has $2J+1$ quantum states sharing one energy eigenvalue, an instance of degenerate energy levels, so the Boltzmann distribution givesHere $Q_{\mathrm{rot}}$ is a rotational partition function, $h$ the Planck constant, $k_{\mathrm{B}}$ the Boltzmann constant, and $B$ a frequency in $\mathrm{Hz}$. Thus $hB/(k_{\mathrm{B}}T)$ is dimensionless. The $2J+1$ factor counts magnetic quantum numbers; it does not mean that a whole level is one quantum state. For the stipulated $B=5\mathrm{GHz}$, the most populated levels are $J=2$ at $3\mathrm{K}$ and $J=7$ at $30\mathrm{K}$.

Population alone is insufficient to predict intensity. In weak, unsaturated absorption, the integrated absorption coefficient includes the transition frequency, the squared electric dipole moment matrix element, and the difference of lower and upper substate populations because stimulated emission returns energy to the field. A pulsed FTMW spectroscopy signal additionally depends on excitation, quantum coherence, cavity tuning, and receiver response.^[ref]

For an isotropic sample with polarization of an electromagnetic wave along $z$, write $d_z=d\cos \theta$. Normalized spherical harmonics giveThe last equality follows from ${\sum }_{M=-J}^J{M}^2=J(J+1)(2J+1)/3$. Combining this sum with the per-substate Boltzmann distribution and subtracting stimulated emission gives relative integrated absorption areasThe common factor includes $d^2/3$ and cancels upon normalization. This formula describes integrated weak absorption in a thermal, spin-free linear rigid rotor, not arbitrary peak heights. The example's strongest integrated lines originate at $J=3$ and $J=13$ for $3$ and $30\mathrm{K}$, respectively: they differ from the most populated levels. A missing line can reflect population, coupling, coverage, or sensitivity; it does not prove that the corresponding quantum state is absent.

Spin isomers of hydrogen are two forms of molecular hydrogen, ${}^1{\mathrm{H}}_2$, distinguished by the combined nuclear spin of their two protons. They have the same chemical formula and electronic ground state, but different allowed molecular rotation states. Parahydrogen has total nuclear spin zero and even rotational quantum number $J$; orthohydrogen has total nuclear spin one and odd $J$. The difference makes heat capacity a probe of fermionic exchange symmetry, and makes cooling history matter for a tank of molecular hydrogen.

Assume the electronic ground state $X{}^1{\Sigma }_g^{+}$ and the vibrational ground state of a free molecule. The electronic factor is symmetric under exchanging the two protons, and the vibrational factor depends only on their separation, so it is also symmetric. These assumptions concern the exchange of protons; the electronic wavefunction separately obeys fermionic exchange symmetry under exchange of electrons. Neglect electronic excitation, vibrational excitation, external fields, and small interactions involving nuclear spin when calculating rotational energy eigenvalues.

The two protons are identical particles with spin $1/2$. Their complete wavefunction must change sign under their particle exchange operator. Interchanging the two ends reverses the internuclear direction $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$, and the spherical harmonic rotational factor satisfiesThe antisymmetric spin-one-half singlet state therefore requires symmetric, even-$J$ rotation; the symmetric spin-one-half triplet state requires antisymmetric, odd-$J$ rotation. This is exchange symmetry of two identical spin-one-half fermions applied inside a diatomic molecule, not an extra rotational force. A linear rigid rotor may omit spin-dependent splittings while still requiring this restriction on its allowed quantum states.

This counts microstates sharing a macrostate; when the shared quantity is energy, it gives the multiplicity of degenerate energy levels. The degeneracy $g(l)$ of a macrostate labelled by $l$ is the number of distinct microstates having that value of $l$.

For $M$ complete energy eigenstates of a one-particle Quantum Hamiltonian for identical noninteracting fermions, order their energies ${ϵ}_1\le \cdots \le {ϵ}_M$. At fixed particle number $0\le N\le M$, the Quantum Hamiltonian and the particle-number constraint areThe ground state occupies the $N$ lowest complete one-particle states. A short minimization argument suffices: moving an occupant from a higher energy to an empty lower energy decreases the total energy. This filling describes the ground state at temperature $T=0$; exclusion by itself also applies to excited quantum states and at positive temperature. The underlying thermal description is the Fermi-Dirac distribution.^[ref]

If the last occupied energy belongs to a group of $g$ one-particle states at the same energy and $q$ of them must be occupied, with all lower states filled, the ground state subspace has dimension $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{g}{q}\right)$. Exclusion does not select a particular basis or a particular quantum superposition in that subspace. The factor of two for an electron spatial orbital assumes both spin projections are included; a model restricted to one spin projection has only one state per spatial orbital. A magnetic field can split the degenerate energy levels, and interactions can change the lowest-energy electron configuration. Thus this finite noninteracting filling rule is not a complete prescription for interacting chemical atoms.