Understanding Principal Quantum Numbers for Sulfur and Arsenic Valence Electrons

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the principal quantum numbers for the s and p valence electrons in sulfur and arsenic. Participants suggest using resources like Google and textbooks to understand quantum numbers and electron configurations. The significance of the principal quantum number in relation to the periodic table is highlighted. A link to a website providing electron configurations is shared for further assistance. The initial query is resolved, indicating a successful outcome for the homework problem.
GLprincess02
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Could someone please help me firgure out this homework problem?

"What is the principal quantum number of the s and p valence electrons in sulfur and arsenic?"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Google "quantum numbers and electron configurations".

That should provide you with much info.

Best of luck.

Steve
 
GLprincess02 said:
Could someone please help me firgure out this homework problem?

"What is the principal quantum number of the s and p valence electrons in sulfur and arsenic?"
This is a rather basic homework problem of which the basis should be in one's textbook. Certainly one should know the significance of the principal quantum number and how it relates to the periodic table.

http://www.webelements.com/

Look for the electron configurations, as Smith4046 mentioned.
 
Ok great I got it now. Thanks. :)
 
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