Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2026

Isotopic Effect in Double Proton Transfer Process of Porphycene Investigated by Enhanced QM/MM Method
Published on: July 19, 2019
Unified interpretation of Hund's first and second rules for 2p and 3p atoms
Takayuki Oyamada1, Kenta Hongo, Yoshiyuki Kawazoe
1Department of Chemistry, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, 6-3 Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8578, Japan. oyamadat@imr.edu
Abstract:
A unified interpretation of Hund's first and second rules for 2p (C, N, O) and 3p (Si, P, S) atoms is given by Hartree-Fock (HF) and multiconfiguration Hartree-Fock (MCHF) methods. Both methods exactly satisfy the virial theorem, in principle, which enables one to analyze individual components of the total energy E(=T+V(en)+V(ee)), where T, V(en), and V(ee) are the kinetic, the electron-nucleus attraction, and the electron-electron repulsion energies, respectively. The correct interpretation for each of the two rules can only be achieved under the condition of the virial theorem 2T+V=0 by investigating how V(en) and V(ee) interplay to attain the lower total potential energy V(=V(en)+V(ee)). The stabilization of the more stable states for all the 2p and 3p atoms is ascribed to a greater V(en) that is caused by contraction of the valence orbitals accompanied with slight expansion of the core orbitals. The contraction of the valence orbitals for the two rules is a consequence of reducing the Hartree screening of the nucleus at short interelectronic distances. The reduced screening in the first rule is due to a greater amount of Fermi hole contributions in the state with the highest total spin-angular momentum S. The reduced screening in the second rule is due to the fact that two valence electrons are more likely to be on opposite sides of the nucleus in the state with the highest total orbital-angular momentum L. For each of the two rules, the inclusion of correlation does not qualitatively change the HF interpretation, but HF overestimates the energy difference ∣ΔE∣ between two levels being compared. The magnitude of the correlation energy is significantly larger for the lower L states than for the higher L states since two valence electrons in the lower L states are less likely to be on opposite sides of the nucleus. The MCHF evaluation of ∣ΔE∣ is in excellent agreement with experiment. The present HF and MCHF calculations demonstrate the above statements that were originally given by Katriel [Theor. Chem. Acta 23, 309 (1972); 26, 163 (1972)]. We have, for the first time, analyzed the correlation-induced changes in the radial density distribution for the excited LS terms of the 2p and 3p atoms as well as for the ground LS term.
More Related Videos
13:56Probe Type II Band Alignment in One-Dimensional Van Der Waals Heterostructures Using First-Principles Calculations
Published on: October 12, 2019
07:56A Photonic System for Generating Unconditional Polarization-Entangled Photons Based on Multiple Quantum Interference
Published on: September 5, 2019
Related Concept Videos
The Aufbau Principle and Hund's Rule
Molecular Orbital Theory II
The Pauli Exclusion Principle
Valence Bond Theory and Hybridized Orbitals
A σ bond (single bond in a Lewis structure) is a covalent bond in which the electron density is...
Hückel's Rule Diagram of π MOs: Frost Circle
A Frost circle is constructed by drawing a polygon whose number of edges is equal to the number of carbons of the given cyclic system, with one of the vertices pointing down. Then, a circle is drawn enclosing the polygon so that...
Electron Configurations
The relative energies of the subshells determine the order in which atomic orbitals are filled (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s,...