Talk:Principal quantum number
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
Aren't they the s, p, d and f orbitals? I'm confused. Jonathan Grynspan
s,p,d,f are for the orbital angular momentum (or azimuthal to give its ancient name) quantum number. I've put the vital word "average" in to qualify the distance of the electron from the nucleus - it is by no means fixed! --Ian 08:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Radial quantum number
Why does radial quantum number redirect here? I have always been taught that the radial quantum number is:
nr = n − l − 1
Being equal to the number of nodes in the radial wavefunction. Does wikipedia call this something else? --Zapateria 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Tagged info on the radial quantum number onto the end of the article but think my formatting needs sorting out. Zapateria 17:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] wave/particle
I'm having trouble with the following line: The energy of any wave is the frequency multiplied by Planck's constant. This causes the wave to display particle-like packets of energy called quanta.
There is no 'wave', nor any 'particle': there is just a quantum, namely the electron. We just visualize it as a wave or a particle, depending on the interaction it is undergoing, but it is neither! The fact that the electron has a certain energy does not cause it to do anything.
I know that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is equal to the frequency multiplied by Planck's constant. Does this hold for electrons? I vaguely seem to remember calculating the wavelength of a tennisball once... Even so, this just tells us the frequency from the (known) energy, it is not an explanation of quantization effects.
--GilHamiltonTheArm 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
