That is, two electrons per atomic orbital, each with a different spin.

As shown at Schrödinger equation solution for the helium atom, they do repel each other, and that affects their measurable energy.

However, this energy is still lower than going up to the next orbital. TODO numbers.

Bibliography:

This changes however at higher orbitals, notably as approximately described by the aufbau principle.

Boring rule that says that less energetic atomic orbitals are filled first.

Much more interesting is actually determining that order, which the Madelung energy ordering rule is a reasonable approximation to.

We will sometimes just write them without superscript, as it saves typing and is useless.

TODO motivation. Motivation. Motivation. Motivation. The definitin with quotient group is easy to understand.

The most notable exception is the borrowing of 3d-orbital electrons to 4s as in chromium, leading to a 3d5 4s1 configuration instead of the 3d4 4s2 we would have with the rule. TODO how is that observed observed experimentally?

This notation is so confusing! People often don't manage to explain the intuition behind it, why this is an useful notation. When you see Indian university entry exam level memorization classes about this, it makes you want to cry.

The key reason why term symbols matter are Hund's rules, which allow us to predict with some accuracy which electron configurations of those states has more energy than the other.

web.chem.ucsb.edu/~devries/chem218/Term%20symbols.pdf puts it well: electron configuration notation is not specific enough, as each such notation e.g. 1s2 2s2 2p2 contains several options of spins and z angular momentum. And those affect energy.

This is why those symbols are often used when talking about energy differences: they specify more precisely which levels you are talking about.

Basically, each term symbol appears to represent a group of possible electron configurations with a given quantum angular momentum.

We first fix the energy level by saying at which orbital each electron can be (hyperfine structure is ignored). It doesn't even have to be the ground state: we can make some electrons excited at will.

The best thing to learn this is likely to draw out all the possible configurations explicitly, and then understand what is the term symbol for each possible configuration, see e.g. term symbols for carbon ground state.

It also confusing how uppercase letters S, P and D are used, when they do not refer to orbitals s, p and d, but rather to states which have the same angular momentum as individual electrons in those states.

It is also very confusing how extremelly close it looks to spectroscopic notation!

The form of the term symbol is:

The $2S+1$ can be understood directly as the degeneracy, how many configurations we have in that state.

Bibliography:

Allow us to determine with good approximation in a multi-electron atom which electron configuration have more energy. It is a bit like the Aufbau principle, but at a finer resolution.

Note that this is not trivial since there is no explicit solution to the Schrödinger equation for multi-electron atoms like there is for hydrogen.

For example, consider carbon which has electron configuration 1s2 2s2 2p2.

If we were to populate the 3 p-orbitals with two electrons with spins either up or down, which has more energy? E.g. of the following two:

Higher spin multiplicity means lower energy. I.e.: you want to keep all spins pointin in the same direction.

This example covered for example at Video 1. "Term Symbols Example 1 by TMP Chem (2015)".

Carbon has electronic structure 1s2 2s2 2p2.

For term symbols we only care about unfilled layers, because in every filled layer the total z angular momentum is 0, as one electron necessarily cancels out each other:

So in this case, we only care about the 2 electrons in 2p2. Let's list out all possible ways in which the 2p2 electrons can be.

There are 3 p orbitals, with three different magnetic quantum numbers, each representing a different possible z quantum angular momentum.

We are going to distribute 2 electrons with 2 different spins across them. All the possible distributions that don't violate the Pauli exclusion principle are:

m_l  +1  0 -1  m_L  m_S
     u_ u_ __    1    1
     u_ __ u_    0    1
     __ u_ u_   -1    1
     d_ d_ __    1   -1
     d_ __ d_    0   -1
     __ d_ d_   -1   -1
     u_ d_ __    1    0
     d_ u_ __    1    0
     u_ __ d_    0    0
     d_ __ u_    0    0
     __ u_ d_   -1    0
     __ d_ u_   -1    0
     ud __ __    2    0
     __ ud __    0    0
     __ __ ud   -2    0

where:

For example, on the first line:we have:and so the sum of them has angular momentum $0+1\hslash =1\hslash$. So the value of $m_L$ is 1, we just omit the $\hslash$.

TODO now I don't understand the logic behind the next steps... I understand how to mechanically do them, but what do they mean? Can you determine the term symbol for individual microstates at all? Or do you have to group them to get the answer? Since there are multiple choices in some steps, it appears that you can't assign a specific term symbol to an individual microstate. And it has something to do with the Slater determinant. The previous lecture mentions it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_8n1TS-8Y0 more precisely youtu.be/7_8n1TS-8Y0?t=2268 about carbon.

youtu.be/DAgEmLWpYjs?t=2675 mentions that ${}^{3}D$ is not allowed because it would imply $L=2,S=1$, which would be a state uu __ __ which violates the Pauli exclusion principle, and so was not listed on our list of 15 states.

He then goes for ${}^{1}D$ and mentions:and so that corresponds to states on our list:Note that for some we had a two choices, so we just pick any one of them and tick them off off from the table, which now looks like:

Then for ${}^{3}P$ the choices are:so we have 9 possibilities for both together. We again verify that 9 such states are left matching those criteria, and tick them off, and so on.

For the $m_S$, we have two electrons with spin up. The angular momentum of each electron is $1/2\hslash$, and so given that we have two, the total is $1\hslash$, so again we omit $\hslash$ and $m_S$ is 1.

Bibliography:

Can we make any ab initio predictions about it all?

A 2016 paper: aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4948309

Isomers were quite confusing for early chemists, before atomic theory was widely accepted, and people where thinking mostly in terms of proportions of equations, related: Section "Isomers suggest that atoms exist".

A law of physics is Galilean invariant if the same formula works both when you are standing still on land, or when you are on a boat moving at constant velocity.

For example, if we were describing the movement of a point particle, the exact same formulas that predict the evolution of $x_{land}(t)$ must also predict $x_{boat}(t)$, even though of course both of those $x(t)$ will have different values.

It would be extremely unsatisfactory if the formulas of the laws of physics did not obey Galilean invariance. Especially if you remember that Earth is travelling extremelly fast relative to the Sun. If there was no such invariance, that would mean for example that the laws of physics would be different in other planets that are moving at different speeds. That would be a strong sign that our laws of physics are not complete.

The consequence/cause of that is that you cannot know if you are moving at a constant speed or not.

Lorentz invariance generalizes Galilean invariance to also account for special relativity, in which a more complicated invariant that also takes into account different times observed in different inertial frames of reference is also taken into account. But the fundamental desire for the Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics remains the same.

Logical consequence, often referred to in formal logic as entailment, is a relationship between statements whereby one statement (or set of statements) necessarily follows from another statement (or set of statements). In other words, if a set of premises logically entails a conclusion, then if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. In more formal terms, we can express this using symbolic logic.

TODO definition. Appears to be isomers

Example:

Molecules that are the same if you just look at "what atom is linked to what atom", they are only different if you consider the relative spacial positions of atoms.