Valid Quantum Number Sets: Analyzing n, l, and ml Values for Set 1, 2, and 3

AI Thread Summary
Set 1 is valid with quantum numbers n=6, l=4, and ml=-4, as they comply with the rules of quantum mechanics. Set 2 is invalid because the value of ml must range from -l to +l, and with l=0, ml cannot be -1. Set 3 is valid with n=4, l=1, and ml=1, as it adheres to the quantum number restrictions. The correct conclusion is that only Set 2 is not valid, making option b the right choice. Overall, the analysis confirms that Sets 1 and 3 are valid while Set 2 is not.
lorka150
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
I have a chart and I have to say if any of the sets are not valid:

------------------------
_____n__l__ml
Set 1: 6 4 -4
Set 2: 1 0 -1
Set 3: 4 1 1

-----------------------
and my choices are:
a) set 1 only
b) set 2 only
c) set 3 only
d) all sets are valid
e) no sets are valid

I chose b, because it set 2 is not valid, and I know that a IS valid (so that woudl be the only choice).

I am not positive if this is correct. but i think so? thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I went over them with the table, and it looks like Set 2 is the only one that is not valid.
 
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