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 $j_z=+frac12hbar,-frac12hbar$?Total Orbital Angular Momentum and its relation to $M_L$ & SymmetryOrbital angular momentum quantum numbers - subtracted?

Why was Mal so quick to drop Bester in favour of Kaylee?

Most importants new papers in computational complexity

Why transcripts instead of degree certificates?

Did Wakanda officially get the stuff out of Bucky's head?

What's the easiest way for a whole party to be able to communicate with a creature that doesn't know Common?

How can I get edges to bend to avoid crossing?

Why agni is known as jaatavedas?

Being paid less than a "junior" colleague

Wrong corporate name on employment agreement

Can the passive "être + verbe" sometimes mean the past?

What's the safest way to inform a new user of their password on my web site?

Is there any problem with this camera not having a lens cover?

How would an order of Monks that renounce their names communicate effectively?

Details of video memory access arbitration in Space Invaders

What is the name of this OOB notification method/popup, and is it customizable?

Understanding Lasso Regression's sparsity geometrically

Can a police officer film me on their personal device in my own home?

Does Anosov geodesic flow imply asphericity?

How did researchers use to find articles before the Internet and the computer era?

Skipping over failed imports until they are needed (if ever)

Is there a way for presidents to legally extend their terms beyond the maximum of four years?

Are there any features that help with the roll to avoid the destruction of a Wand of Fireballs when using the last charge?

Are these intended activities legal to do in the USA under the VWP?

Could human civilization live 150 years in a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier colony without resorting to mass killing/ cannibalism?



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 $j_z=+frac12hbar,-frac12hbar$?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;








5












$begingroup$


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?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
    $endgroup$
    – DJohnM
    8 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
    7 hours ago

















5












$begingroup$


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?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
    $endgroup$
    – DJohnM
    8 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
    7 hours ago













5












5








5





$begingroup$


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?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









lineage

1025 bronze badges




1025 bronze badges






New contributor



ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 8 hours ago









ROBIN RAJROBIN RAJ

262 bronze badges




262 bronze badges




New contributor



ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
    $endgroup$
    – DJohnM
    8 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
    7 hours ago












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
    $endgroup$
    – DJohnM
    8 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
    7 hours ago







2




2




$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
Are the contributions of all electrons equal in sign?
$endgroup$
– DJohnM
8 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
7 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
7 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

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:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
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 $J=frac12$, 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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    MathJax suggestion: hide a $providecommandket[1]left$ somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$, $ketuparrowdownarrow$, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$.
    $endgroup$
    – rob
    7 hours ago













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.









draft saved

draft discarded


















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









6












$begingroup$

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:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
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 $J=frac12$, 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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    MathJax suggestion: hide a $providecommandket[1]left$ somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$, $ketuparrowdownarrow$, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$.
    $endgroup$
    – rob
    7 hours ago















6












$begingroup$

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:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
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 $J=frac12$, 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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    MathJax suggestion: hide a $providecommandket[1]left$ somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$, $ketuparrowdownarrow$, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$.
    $endgroup$
    – rob
    7 hours ago













6












6








6





$begingroup$

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:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
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 $J=frac12$, 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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



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:
$$|uparrowrangle text & |downarrowrangle$$
Each of these have angular momentum $frac12$. However if we want to add another electron we only have 1 possible state which satisfies antisymmetry,
$$|psirangle = frac1sqrt2left(|uparrowdownarrowrangle - |downarrowuparrowrangleright)$$
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 $J=frac12$, 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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 7 hours ago

























answered 7 hours ago









TEHTEH

3467 bronze badges




3467 bronze badges







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    MathJax suggestion: hide a $providecommandket[1]left$ somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$, $ketuparrowdownarrow$, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$.
    $endgroup$
    – rob
    7 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    MathJax suggestion: hide a $providecommandket[1]left$ somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$, $ketuparrowdownarrow$, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$.
    $endgroup$
    – rob
    7 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a $providecommandket[1]left$ somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$, $ketuparrowdownarrow$, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$.
$endgroup$
– rob
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
MathJax suggestion: hide a $providecommandket[1]left$ somewhere near the top of your answer. Then use $ketuparrow$, $ketuparrowdownarrow$, etc., which have nicer-looking kerning than just $|uparrowrangle$.
$endgroup$
– rob
7 hours ago










ROBIN RAJ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її