Have atomic models been proposed that do not have overlapping N levels?
What is "overlapping N levels"?
For example orbital 4s2 fills before orbital 3d10. N level 4 overlaps with N level 3.
The atomic models can be experimentally verified using photonic spectra. The only one we have right now, even though it was shaped up as far back as in the 1920s, is the only one meeting experimental confirmation.
I've never heard of that being called "overlap". That a very poor description of it.
I'm not sure what the question means. Why would anyone propose a model that isn't supported by experiment?
I understand the current model predicts 24 Cr to fill [Ar] 3d4 4s2 but actually fills [Ar] 3d5 4s1. Doesn't that show there might be something wrong with the model?
How is the current model supported by experiment to explain electrons filling the orbitals of 24 Cr?
What precisely do you mean with "current model"? Quantum theory or density functional (or other) approaches for the approximate calculation of term schemes?
It is quantum theory that predicts and explain such orbital filling, ie why the 4s is filled ahead of the 3d.
This is puzzling. Unless you have a specific question to understand this phenomenon, then this thread has no specific purpose.
Well I think the purpose is the same as for the other theads jerryscan has created to promote his "new atomic model" that is so much better than quantum theory and will become the new standard, undoubtedly.
How exactly does quantum theory predict and explain why 24 Cr fills [Ar] 3d5 4s1 and not [Ar] 3d4 4s2?
Because it calculates the energy required to fill all of those! It predicts shielding effects, and it shows that since the symmetry of the 3d orbitals extends further from the nucleus, on average, than the 4s orbital, the 3d will NOT have a lower energy than the 4s in terms of filling up the orbitals!
There is no mystery here. This is a very standard topic in quantum chemistry topic, something you would have discovered had you try looking it up.
Thanks ZapperZ Physics Forums values civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience and diplomacy while debating
This is hilarious. You seem to be unaware that the energy levels of atoms are the result of approximate computations (like hartree-fock and more advanced methods) and of actual measurements. If the measurements disagree with the result of the computation, then the approximations and improved until all relevant aspects are included to the point of at least structural (and that includes the energy order) agreement.
Everything you said here and in other threads suggests to me that you are mistaking the term schemes and filling rules for actually constituting quantum theory, which couldn't be more wrong. You also ignore the fact that quantum theory is the most accurate theory we know and we have not found a single experiment that would quantitatively or qualitatively disagree with its predictions.
That all just in case you don't understand why you're not being taken serious.
Separate names with a comma.