Quantum spin numbers for ground-state electron configurations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the interpretation of electron spin quantum numbers in ground-state configurations. Participants analyze the implications of having electrons with spin states of +1/2, 0, and -1/2, questioning the validity of representing paired electrons with opposing spins as canceling each other out. The Pauli exclusion principle is highlighted, emphasizing that it restricts identical fermions from occupying the same quantum state, but raises questions about the application of this principle to particles with a spin of zero. There is a consensus that the original question may be misleading or overly simplistic, suggesting a deeper exploration of quantum mechanics is necessary. Ultimately, the complexity of electron configurations and spin states requires careful consideration beyond basic assumptions.
spaghettibretty
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


[/B]
Please redraw this figure by assuming that an electron can have spin quantum number ms = +1/2 (arrow up), ms = 0 (marked as "I"), or ms = -1/2 (arrow down). It is important to clearly state your arguments/reasoning.
http://s30.postimg.org/jz7tfeha9/wow.png

Homework Equations



None

The Attempt at a Solution



I think I'm oversimplifying this question too much. In the image, there are arrows that point up and down and they represent the spin of an electron. I know there are two electrons per orbital. If there are two arrows, one pointing up and one pointing down, wouldn't the arrows cancel out and be equal to 0? Then any atoms that don't have all their states equal to zero would be positive, since the positive spin number always go first. Wouldn't this mean I would just have to put a zero where there are two arrows and a +1/2 where there is an arrow pointing up? This seems too simple to be correct.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can be missing something, but I think this is a stupid question.

My bet is that whoever asked it wanted you to remember the Pauli exclusion principle. Commonly taught version of the Pauli exclusion principle says that you can't have two identical electrons (with identical set of quantum numbers) in an atom/molecule. Normally it means two electrons in an orbital, and they probably expect you to put three electrons on the orbital.

There is a problem though - Pauli exclusion principle doesn't say "two identical electrons", it says "you can' have two identical fermions". And fermion is any particle with a half integer spin. Spin zero is not a "half integer spin" so the particle with spins 1/2, 0, -1/2 is not a fermion, and we don't know if the Pauli exclusion principle applies to it. So in reality the question asks "how do the laws of nature work when they not work", and as such doesn't make much sense.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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...
Back
Top