Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Orbital shell limits

  1. Sep 30, 2005 #1
    Am very interested in why the inner shells have 2 electrons, the next couple have a couple more, and the rest all the same.

    If you would like to argue that its related to the diameter of the orbit then of course you have MAJOR issues to deal with.

    This is important and I'm hoping someone here can give me a good answer.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 30, 2005 #2
    It's a quantum mechanical thing, and pertains to a mixture of the pauli exclusion principle and the number of states in a given energy level. I'm not sure how detailed to go in the explaination.
  4. Sep 30, 2005 #3
    Thanks Malleus

    Any details are welcomed. Even if they are references. I'm currently investigating the possibility that complex numbers are relevant in filling up the hole in the periodic table.

    The need to achieve symetry and order can become a barrier in these endevours - but I am convinced that dark matter et al will fit into the periodic table once its accepted that quantum physics deals with extra dimensions and einstein deals with 4 dimensions. Time of course is the axis, and M theory people are deluded about the shape of dimensions. The universe has fluidic dynamics in multiple dimensions, and our smartest people are generally ignorant of it. Lisa Randall could solve it if she tried.
  5. Sep 30, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Dude, I think you should lay off the weed for a few days. Or at least share with me. :smile:

    Seriously, the periodic table doesn't really have any holes, since it starts at 1 and goes up from there continuously. The orbitals help explain why it takes on the shape it does. Dark matter doesn't go there unless it binds to the nucleus because of its charge (and it's not known to have any). No dark matter has ever been found in an atom (so far).

    As to the delusion of the M theory folks: everyone is still waiting for that big breakthrough. But they are humping to make it happen. We'll see.
  6. Oct 3, 2005 #5
    Dr Chinese has a great sense of humor.

    SimonA - there are no holes in the PT - perhaps there was one until we found Tc, but other than that... Like Malleus was saying, it's a bit complicated...There are 4e total in the 1s, 2s shells. After that, 6p (2x, 2y, 2z) then 10d (2xy 2xz, 2yz, 2dz^2, 2x^2 - y^2), etc. etc. As Malleus said, Pauli exclusion only allows 1 spin-up and 1 spin down and Hund's rules govern how they can add into successive levels.

    If you want to know more about why they end up this way, look up Legendre polynomials, as the Legendre polynomials govern all sorts of stratified energy behavior, including those seen on the sun.
  7. Oct 3, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Er... have you ever solved the Schrodinger equation for a hydrogenic atom, for example? How could you talk about what Lisa Randall is doing when you haven't even done the most basic exercise in QM? Look at the orbital part of the solution. You have the spherical harmonics (the Legendre polynomial that solidspin alluded to) with eigenvalues in multiples of [tex]l(l+1)\hbar[/tex] where l is the angular momentum quantum number. Combine that with the azymuthal solution (the "m's"), and you have a complete description of all available states for such a system.

    Such an exercise is covered in practically all standard QM texts.

  8. Oct 4, 2005 #7

    HA :rofl:
  9. Oct 5, 2005 #8
    Hey Dr Chinese

    I gave up the weed long ago - this stuff I'm teaching myself is enough to make me feel stoned!

    But you are talking about atomic weight right ? Why are you confident that Hydrogen is not the penultimate baryonic element right next to Helium ?

    I'm just a curious - no crime in that is there ?

    Aren't atoms what make matter ? How could matter be found inside matter ? I'm just asking you to step back a bit from assumptions. If I'm wrong and there is a reason why I am then I'm the first person to want to know. Thats the reason I posted here!

    I still say they have their whole idea of dimensions warped :uhh:

    I like to learn learn via the dialectic... To consider a point based model of spacial dimensionality is a cartesian and euclidian mistake einstein should have saved us from. Its plain wrong and will not be part of the solution - despite the beauty of calabi yau structures etc...


  10. Oct 5, 2005 #9
    Thanks solidspin. This is something I need to look at closer when its not nearing 4am.

    One question in the meantime. You use Pauli's Exclusion as a kind of principle, and so where in this principle is any kind of begining to explain how the wave function collapses instantly across space ? The superposition itself is in some way contained outside of space, and in relatavistic terms, outside of spacetime. This is something we really need to look at closely - don't you agree ?


  11. Oct 5, 2005 #10

    Yes and this is the formalism and I'm learning the things I need to (slowly as there is lots to learn). We know the formalism is correct. But you have to admit that even the concept of angular momentum is kind of nonsense in QM ? Sure the states are described, and described accurately. There are massive gaps that don't make any sense. Of course its not right to reject something thats predicatable and provable just because it doesn't make sense. But the electron shells are clouds that reach a certain limit to their energy which then spills over. This is understandable if you consider super dimensions where we see quantum effects across dimensions and relatavistic effects in one superdimension (the old 3D space). Time is an axis.
  12. Oct 6, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Then you haven't read our PF Guideline, and I have a feeling this is the reason why you are posting this and in the other thread. Therefore, this thread is done and you are welcome to pursue this in the IR section per the IR form letter below:


    Dear PF member,

    This thread is locked because it contains opinions that are contrary to those currently held by the scientific community. This is against the Posting Guidelines of Physics Forums. If you would like to discuss your ideas, we invite you to submit a post to the Independent Research Forum, subject to the applicable guidelines, found here.

    We appreciate your cooperation, and hope you enjoy the Forums.

    Best regards,

    The Staff of Physics Forums
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Orbital shell limits
  1. Electron Shell (Replies: 5)

  2. Orbitals and shells (Replies: 8)

  3. Orbits and orbitals (Replies: 16)

  4. The limit (Replies: 11)