What Do the Slanted Arrows Mean in Orbital Energy Levels?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that S, P, D, and F refer to subshells associated with their azimuthal quantum numbers, while the numbers indicate the principal quantum number representing energy levels. The slanted arrows in orbital diagrams serve as a mnemonic for the order of filling orbitals based on increasing energy levels. This filling order follows the n+L rule, which helps determine the sequence in which electrons occupy different orbitals. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the structure of the periodic table and electron configurations. Overall, the arrows symbolize the progression of energy levels in atomic orbitals.
Qube
Gold Member
Messages
461
Reaction score
1
Ok, I know that the S, P, D, and F represent blocks (groups of elements) on the periodic table.

I know that the numbers represent rows on the periodic table.

But what about the arrows? What's with the business of "increasing energy"? Why are the arrows slanted?

[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/icVeTS.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Qube said:
Ok, I know that the S, P, D, and F represent blocks (groups of elements) on the periodic table.

I know that the numbers represent rows on the periodic table.

But what about the arrows? What's with the business of "increasing energy"? Why are the arrows slanted?

[PLAIN]http://i.min.us/icVeTS.png[/QUOTE]

I don't think S, P, D, and F represent blocks. They are subshells i.e azimuthal quantum number(L) and the numbers represent the energy level, i.e Principal quantum number to which the subshells belong.

For example:- 3s
Here s is the subshell which has the azimuthal quantum number "1" and "3"(principal quantum number) is the energy level.

And about the arrows, that's just a mnemonic to remember about the order of filling of orbitals. I don't why the arrows are purposely slanted. The arrows go according to increasing energy level. If you see, the arrows go according to n+L rule.
Hope that helped...! :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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