Optical Spectra of Helium & Other Elements

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around identifying which elements have optical spectra similar to helium. Participants initially suggest Strontium and Calcium due to their filled valence shells but later express uncertainty about this choice. There is consideration of including Lithium, which has one more electron than helium, in the potential candidates. The conversation highlights the complexity of predicting optical spectra based on electron configurations. Ultimately, there is a consensus that a deeper understanding of spectral characteristics is necessary for accurate identification.
w3390
Messages
341
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The following elements should have optical spectra similar to either a hydrogen atom or a helium atom. Indicate which of the following elements should have optical spectra similar to a helium atom. (Select all that apply.)

The choices are: Cadmium, Lithium, Technetium, Titanium, Platinum, Strontium, Calcium, and Francium.

Homework Equations



N/A

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought that since helium has a full level of valence electrons, it would have similar optical spectra as other elements with their highest orbitals completely filled. So I went with Strontium and Calcium, but this is incorrect. What am I doing wrong? Any help would be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd say lithium because it has only one more electron than helium, but I'm not too sure about spectra problems.
 
I don't like the question. My guess would be to go for s2 atoms with all other orbitals filled.

Somehow I don't think this approach will survive when comparing real spectra.

--
methods
 
Ya, that's what I thought too, so I chose Strontium and Calcium but I am wrong. Do you think I should include 1s atoms as well that have all other orbitals filled? I haven't yet tried the combination: Lithium, Calcium, Strontium, and Francium. This may be it, but I am hesitant because I only have one chance left on my assignment.
 
s1 sounds more hydrogenish :wink:

--
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top