Which Orbitals Do These Quantum Numbers Describe?

Thread starter lorka150
Start date Oct 12, 2006
Tags

Orbital Quantum Quantum number

AI Thread Summary

The discussion focuses on identifying orbitals based on given quantum numbers. The correct orbital designations for the pairs provided are 5s for n=5, l=0; 3p for n=3, l=1; and 4d for n=4, l=2. Participants confirm that the values of l correspond to specific orbital types: l=0 is s, l=1 is p, l=2 is d, and so forth. The responses validate the initial claims and provide clarity on the relationship between quantum numbers and orbital types. Understanding these relationships is essential for mastering quantum chemistry concepts.

Oct 12, 2006

lorka150

For the pairs below, I need to name the orbital they describe... I just am checking that I am on the right track:

a) n=5, l=0 >> 5s
b) n=3, l=1 >> 3p
c) n=4, l=2 >> 4d

if those are not correct, can someone lead me in the right direction?

Physics news on Phys.org

Oct 12, 2006

gravenewworld

looks good

Oct 12, 2006

lkh1986

Yeap, when l=0, the orbital is s.
l=1... Orbital p
l=2... Orbital d
l=3... Orbital f
l=4... Orbital g
and so on...

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...

View full post »

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 »