Parity orbital

The magnetic dipole moments are sensitive to details of the singlenucleon wave functions. Thus the mixture of opposite-parity orbitals in the... 

So far, we have studied separately the ordering and splitting of positive-parity excitations and the corresponding pattern of the negative-parity states. We now address the following question which is the lowest excitation the positive-parity radial excitation l) = [56,0 ] or the negative-parity orbital excitation 2)s[70,1 ] This question is motivated by the anomalously low location of the Roper resonance in the excitation spectrum of N and A. In the case of harmonic confinement, the radial... 

The sign of the last term depends on the parity of the system. Note that in the first and last term (in fact, determinants), the spin-orbit functions alternate, while in all others there are two pairs of adjacent atoms with the same spin functions. We denote the determinants in which the spin functions alternate as the alternant spin functions (ASF), as they turn out to be important reference terms. 

In the lowest optieally excited state of the molecule, we have one eleetron (ti ) and one hole (/i ), each with spin 1/2 which couple through the Coulomb interaetion and can either form a singlet 5 state (5 = 0), or a triplet T state (S = 1). Since the electric dipole matrix element for optical transitions — ep A)/(me) does not depend on spin, there is a strong spin seleetion rule (AS = 0) for optical electric dipole transitions. This strong spin seleetion rule arises from the very weak spin-orbit interaction for carbon. Thus, to turn on electric dipole transitions, appropriate odd-parity vibrational modes must be admixed with the initial and (or) final electronic states, so that the w eak absorption below 2.5 eV involves optical transitions between appropriate vibronic levels. These vibronic levels are energetically favored by virtue... 

Figure B A qualitative molecular orbital diagram for ferrocene. The subscripts g and u refer to the parity of the orbitals g (German gerade, even) indicates that the orbital (or orbital combination) is symmetric with respect to inversion, whereas the subscript u (ungerade, odd) indicates that it is antisymmetric with respect to inversion. Only orbitals with the same parity can combine.

Consider now spin-allowed transitions. The parity and angular momentum selection rules forbid pure d d transitions. Once again the rule is absolute. It is our description of the wavefunctions that is at fault. Suppose we enquire about a d-d transition in a tetrahedral complex. It might be supposed that the parity rule is inoperative here, since the tetrahedron has no centre of inversion to which the d orbitals and the light operator can be symmetry classified. But, this is not at all true for two reasons, one being empirical (which is more of an observation than a reason) and one theoretical. The empirical reason is that if the parity rule were irrelevant, the intensities of d-d bands in tetrahedral molecules could be fully allowed and as strong as those we observe in dyes, for example. In fact, the d-d bands in tetrahedral species are perhaps two or three orders of magnitude weaker than many fully allowed transitions. 

The theoretical reason is as follows. Although the placing of the ligands in a tetrahedral molecule does not define a centre of symmetry, the d orbitals are nevertheless centrosymmetric and the light operator is still of odd parity and so d-d transitions remain parity and orbitally Al = 1) forbidden. It is the nuclear coordinates that fail to define a centre of inversion, while we are considering a... 

The first two parts of the expression vanish exactly because of Laporte s rule, while the last two survive both parity and orbital selection rules to the extent that the mixing coefficients c and c are non-zero in noncentric complexes. 

Now look at octahedral complexes, or those with any other environment possessing a centre of symmetry e.g. square-planar). These present a further problem. The process of violating the parity rule is no longer available, for orbitals of different parity do not mix under a Hamiltonian for a centrosymmetric molecule. Here the nuclear arrangement requires the labelling of d functions as g and of p functions as m in centrosymmetric complexes, d orbitals do not mix with p orbitals. And yet d-d transitions are observed in octahedral chromophores. We must turn to another mechanism. Actually this mechanism is operative for all chromophores, whether centrosymmetric or not. As we shall see, however, it is less effective than that described above and so wasn t mentioned there. For centrosymmetric systems it s the only game in town. 

A mistake often made by those new to the subject is to say that The Laporte rule is irrelevant for tetrahedral complexes (say) because they lack a centre of symmetry and so the concept of parity is without meaning . This is incorrect because the light operates not upon the nuclear coordninates but upon the electron coordinates which, for pure d ox p wavefunctions, for example, have well-defined parity. The lack of a molecular inversion centre allows the mixing together of pure d and p ox f) orbitals the result is the mixed parity of the orbitals and consequent non-zero transition moments. Furthermore, had the original statement been correct, we would have expected intensities of tetrahedral d-d transitions to be fully allowed, which they are not. 

Paddon-Row MN, Shephard MJ (1997) Through-bond orbital coupling, the parity rule, and the design of superbridges which exhibit greatly enhanced electronic coupling a natural bond orbital analysis. J Am Chem Soc 119 5355-5365... 

Charge-transfer excitations from odd ligand levels to the even metal ys and y>3 levels clearly represent formally Laporte-allowed u - -g transitions, and consequently should be intense. Ligand to metal transitions involving even ligand orbitals are of course also possible, but would be parity forbidden and are therefore rather seldom observed. For many of the ions here treated though the data are derived from reflectance measurements and the intensity criterion is of limited value because of the increase in the scattering coefficient which usually occurs above about 25 kK. [c.f. (7)]. 

M. N. Paddon-Row, M. J. Shephard, Through-Bond Orbital Coupling, the Parity Rule, and the Design of Superbridges Which Exhibit Greatly Enhanced Electronic Coupling - a Natural Bond Orbital Analysis , J. Am. Chem. Soc 1997,119, 5355-5365. 

Finally, we should remember that f f transitions are parity-forbidden. However, most of them become partially allowed at the electric dipole order as a result of mixing with other orbitals that have different parity because of a noninversion symmetry crystal field (see Section 5.3). Thus, a proper choice of the crystal host (or the site symmetry) can cause a variety of (RE) + transitions to become forced electric dipole transitions. 

In the limit of high rotation, it is possible to associate these A-doublet components with states where the half-filled orbital is either in, or perpendicular to, the plane of rotation. If the ions are thermally equilibrated, the e and/parity label states would each represent 50% of the population, implying a possible SIKIE on the order of a factor of two. However, there is no fundamental reason why El caimot have a propensity for producing a particular parity label state that could lead to SIKIE considerably larger (or smaller) than a factor of two. 

Since the Cg orbitals are stabihzed by interaction with the d-orbitals of the central ion, he ascribed the first c.t. transition to the parity-allowed hg- -f. Since neither the hg nor the / level are strongly influenced by the bonding in the complex, the position of the c. t. transition is expected to be host-lattice independent as observed experimentally for six-coordination. 

---