Some questions on energy of orbitals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ezio3.1415
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Orbitals
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the properties of orbitals, specifically the degeneracy of px, py, and pz orbitals in the configuration 0=[He] 2s^2 2px^2 2py^1 2pz^1, where they are still considered degenerate despite differing stability. The inert pair effect is questioned for its underlying reasons, with participants seeking clarification on common explanations. Additionally, the order of the shielding effect for s, p, d, and f orbitals is confirmed as s > p > d > f, with inquiries about the rationale behind this hierarchy. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the need for deeper understanding of orbital behavior and electron interactions.
Ezio3.1415
Messages
159
Reaction score
1
1. We know px,py,pz are degenerate orbitals... My question is suppose in
0=[He] 2s^2 2px^2 2py^1 2pz^1
Are the px,py,pz orbitals degenerate here?

2. What is the true reason of inert pair effect?

3. What is the order of shielding effect for s,p,d,f?I just want to verify my answers...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ezio3.1415 said:
1. We know px,py,pz are degenerate orbitals... My question is suppose in
0=[He] 2s^2 2px^2 2py^1 2pz^1
Are the px,py,pz orbitals degenerate here?

2. What is the true reason of inert pair effect?

3. What is the order of shielding effect for s,p,d,f?


I just want to verify my answers...

Please show your work and your answers.
 
1. the orbitals were degenerate... Now px is more stable,means less energy... so py and pz are degenerate...

2. I know about it... Was expecting an answer and justify whether the things I read are true...

3. s>p>d>f
my ques is why?
 

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Some questions on energy of orbitals
Replies
1
Views
2K
Optimizing Filter Thickness in MCNP5 for Phosphorus 32 Bremsstrahlung Reduction
Replies
6
Views
2K
MCNP6: error -- "bad trouble in imcn" is usually tangled with spacing error?
Replies
6
Views
4K
MCNP6: Cell Volume Not Calculated - Assymetrical
Replies
2
Views
2K
How Are Electrons Distributed Among Px, Py, and Pz Orbitals in Carbon?
Replies
2
Views
8K
How can there be back-bonding in PF3?
Replies
6
Views
5K
Orbital overlap diagram for ammonia
Replies
5
Views
6K
A Monte Carlo Wang-Landau_antiferromagnetic perovskite
Replies
3
Views
2K
I In what cases (precisely) are Hund's rules valid?
Replies
3
Views
4K
Orbital dynamics math review for a computer simulation
Replies
11
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top