Re: "archaic" view of atom structure
From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 12/17/04
- Next message: David Evens: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Previous message: Geoff Edwards: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- In reply to: lindas4_at_aol.com: ""archaic" view of atom structure"
- Next in thread: Creighton Hogg: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- Reply: Creighton Hogg: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- Reply: Lewis Mammel: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- Reply: lindas4_at_aol.com: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:12:17 -0800
lindas4@aol.com wrote:
>
> Earlier today, I was told that the view of an atom as a nucleus with
> electrons in circular orbits was "archaic".
Archaic since about the 1920s and Legender polynomials or the LCAO
approximation. Archaic since p-orbitals.
> As I understand it (I am
> NOT a "card carrying physicist") this is, indeed a good, simplified
> view of the basic structure, and thus is useful for teaching and for
> calculations.
If the kid has two digits in his age he should be taught better. It
won't calculate squat. Hey lady - did you ever hear of... say it
softly... ACETONE? BENZENE? Why carotene is orange?
> In fact, this structure does occur. For example, it is
> present in hydrogen and helium atoms.
Craps out with beryllium.
> In atoms with a larger number of
> electrons, some electrons are forced into larger circular orbits, and
> some into elliptical orbits. Am I OK so far?
Christ, lady, crack a chemistry book.
> Also, as I understand it, the term "cloud" when used to refer to
> electrons and their behavior, simply refers to the fact that the
> electron, unlike a planet in the solar system, does not remain
> constantly in the same orbit, but moves away from and toward the
> nucleus as it travels around it (we all learned in elementary school
> science that heat will cause this to occur). Thus, the electron would
> look, to an observer, like a fuzzy cloud, and not like a clearly
> defined ring.
>
> Would a real "card carrying physicist", hopefully a physics instructor,
> please tell me if I am missing something here?
High school education.
http://www.orbitals.com/orb/orbtable.htm
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/aos/
http://itl.chem.ufl.edu/ao_pict/
http://daugerresearch.com/orbitals/
http://www.orbitals.com/orb/orbtable.htm
American zero-goal education has arrived. Every child left behind!
-- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
- Next message: David Evens: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Previous message: Geoff Edwards: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- In reply to: lindas4_at_aol.com: ""archaic" view of atom structure"
- Next in thread: Creighton Hogg: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- Reply: Creighton Hogg: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- Reply: Lewis Mammel: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- Reply: lindas4_at_aol.com: "Re: "archaic" view of atom structure"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|