Unveiling the Origins of SPDF: Insights from Old Threads and Blog Posts

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter idea2000
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the origins of the spdf orbitals, including their naming conventions and derivations from quantum mechanics and spectral observations. Participants seek historical insights, references, and mathematical derivations related to the topic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference various sources that explain the naming of the orbitals as being derived from spectral lines: sharp, principle, diffuse, and fundamental.
  • Another participant mentions alternative terms for the orbitals: sharp, pronounced, diffuse, and foggy, noting a discrepancy with established literature.
  • Several participants express interest in mathematical derivations of the orbitals from Schrödinger's equation, with one suggesting that such derivations can be found in atomic physics textbooks and online resources like Hyperphysics.
  • One participant argues that the orbitals were not derived from mathematical principles but rather from spectral line observations, which were later explained by quantum mechanics, highlighting the evolution of the Bohr model with the addition of quantum numbers and Pauli's exclusion principle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the derivation of the spdf orbitals, with differing views on whether they stem from mathematical formulations or observational data. The naming conventions also show some disagreement among participants.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the derivation and naming of the orbitals depend on specific interpretations of historical and scientific literature, which may not be universally accepted. There are unresolved aspects regarding the mathematical steps involved in deriving the quantum numbers.

idea2000
Messages
99
Reaction score
2
Are there any old threads or insights blog posts that talk about how spdf was derived? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Another reference:

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com...als-spdf-why-they-named-like-that/96351#96351

I found a poster reference where from memory he/she said:

- sharp
- pronounced
- diffuse
- foggy

which seems more to form but it disagrees with the literature.

As an aside, this reminds me of the River Runs Through It author, Norman McLean who described a small creek name "Wet A**" Creek which was later Indianified to Wetase Creek.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/idaho/1348265-selway-bitterroot-2.html
 
Your posts were very helpful, thanks. Are there any resources that show how they were derived from Schrödinger's? Like, actual math? Thanks!
 
idea2000 said:
Your posts were very helpful, thanks. Are there any resources that show how they were derived from Schrödinger's? Like, actual math? Thanks!
You will fin the derivation in any book dealing with atomic physics, and most textbooks on quantum mechanics.

For online resources, you can look at Hyperphysics: a first part describes the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom, and then, after separation of variables, how the ##l## quantum number comes about.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
idea2000 said:
Your posts were very helpful, thanks. Are there any resources that show how they were derived from Schrödinger's? Like, actual math? Thanks!

They aren't derived from math but from spectral line observation of elements and the results were then explained by quantum mechanics. The predictions of the Bohr model were wrong for some elements and other physicists adjusted the model by adding additional quantum numbers to bring it back into alignment with observation. Pauli's exclusion principle was the final one that allowed the new Bohr model to explain the lines.

You can read more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K