joigus

Todavía no es juernes, cogujada. Take it easy. I'll dig out something for you about Zeff that I think will help you. Give me some time.

Here I meant d/p. With the f's it's even worse, I suspect.

Well, that's good to know. Thank you. Now I think some questions are in order. Very low with respect to what? There are no absolute standards to say that something is low, AFAIK. Low it may be, but apparently, not enough as to consider, \[\int_{298K}^{T}dT\left(\triangle_{R}c_{p}\right)\] as negligible. Why can you consider the temperature fixed as to some effects and varying as to other effects? Could you be more specific, please? I really want to help, if it's possible. Maybe it's not.

There's quite a bit wrong with Moeller's diagram. Some s/d orbitals (and some d/f I think) start violating it because they get very close in energy. If you try to fill in the levels by Moeller, you get the electronic configuration wrong. I think that's the reason why your teacher doesn't like it. You can still use it if you remember the exceptions.

For what kind of n? I don't think that's universal. Take a look at @studiot's graphs. +1. Electrons in 3d, 4d, or 4f start going a bit nuts. I think by the way that's when new orbital types are being inaugurated! Not sure now, but it may have to do with exceptions in Moeller's diagram. Aufbau is more solid, if I remember correctly.

Hi, Matthew. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Now I understand much better. The last identities for dH in terms of (V, P, T, S) or dG in terms of (V, P, S, T) are totally right AFAICT. The problem I see is in delta G in terms of (H, T, S) in an intermediate step that I think is the one that leads to contradiction. You write, \[\triangle_{R}G^{0}\left(T\right)=\triangle_{R}H^{0}\left(T\right)-T\triangle_{R}S^{0}\] (this is the one that's wrong, I think) Then you take the delta H^0 at T to delta H^0 at 298K by, \[\triangle_{R}H^{0}\left(T\right)=\triangle_{R}H^{0}\left(298K\right)+\int_{298K}^{T}dT\left(\triangle_{R}c_{p}\right)\] The last step is right, but the mistake, I think, is in the first equation, as, \[\triangle_{R}G^{0}\left(T\right)\neq\triangle_{R}H^{0}\left(T\right)-T\triangle_{R}S^{0}\] When the actual identity should be, \[\triangle_{R}G^{0}\left(T\right)=\triangle_{R}H^{0}\left(T\right)-T\triangle_{R}S^{0}-S^{0}\triangle_{R}T\] The term you're missing in this intermediate step is the one that cancels the discrepancy, if I'm not mistaken. Edit: Thanks for the careful explanation. +1. I hope that helps.

Maybe I have to look at it closer, but seems to me there's something wrong there. There's no such thing as Gibbs free enthalpy, but Gibbs free energy. Edit: Sorry, I changed F with G. I erased my equations. I'll think about it a bit longer. What's the sub R? Incrementing G: \[G=U+PV-TS=H-TS\] should give you, \[\triangle G=\triangle H-T\triangle S-S\triangle T\] and not, \[\triangle G=\triangle H-T\triangle S\] Could that be the problem? I don't know what the deltas represent (processes?, balance from products to reactants?) In any case I think that could be the problem. Edit 2: On second thought, you seem to be considering fixed temperature, right? Edit 3: You're taking increments at constant (standard conditions) temperature, yet you're integrating in T. I'm confused. Is temperature changing or not?

Thank you. +1.

Yes, that's correct. Narrower --> Higher peaks. Conservation of probability. Yes, for S (Z=16) and Cl (Z=17) the valence electrons are in 3p orbital, so those are outer electrons. No, it asks me for a login or an e-mail address. I'm busy now. I'll get back to you in maybe 6+ hours...

I agree with @studiot. Solving a high-Z atom is not like solving Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom, substituting +e by +Ze and assuming that all the hydrogen-like "orbitals" are filled with electrons. There is the Hartree-Fock method, there are other methods that I can't remember now, and the problem is highly non-trivial. You pointed to one of the clues yourself here: It's even worse than that, AAMOF. You've got spin-spin effect, spin-orbit effects, the nucleus, London, and others I forget and would have to review. Highly complicated N-body problem mess. But intuition can guide you if you're interested in qualitative discussion. That's why I asked you if they were outer (valence) or inner electrons (1s). Outer electrons get more spread. But for very internal electrons my intuition (maybe my memory in part) tells me that it's the opposite. Electrons midway from both extremes are more difficult to predict. I think it's no coincidence that they're giving you 1s electrons 1st principal quantum number and s-wave e-, so they don't stray very far from the nucleus-- for relatively high-Z atoms: Those e- will be very close to a +Ze charged nucleus. External electrons, although many of them will be in high-l orbital angular momentum and stray farther from the nucleus, will, on the average, act as a shell of negative charge outside the internal ones. First approx. to this is a shell of negative charge covering them would be a spherical shell of negative charge which has zero electric field inside (I'm using electrostatics as a clue). It's not a sphere, I know, but we're thinking schematically. And AAMOF some of them are s-wave spheres!! So my intuition is 1s electrons will get closer to the nucleus (more "penetrating") in the case of the higher-Z neutral atom, even though the valence electrons suffer the opposite trend and spread out for higher Z. Don't take for granted anything I say here. Take my cue, see if it makes sense, discuss it with your classmate, and do your research and finally do your own thinking. It's going to teach you a lot more than anything anybody can do by telling you the answer. And plan B is ask your teacher. It may be embarrassing, but you must get over it. She won't mind, I'm sure. Quite the opposite. You can use my idea about internal electrons as a foil. I'm interested in the answer. Edit: I can't see your picture.

I think you've made an interesting point here, but I also think you go a bit too far when you say it's unethical. YT does have excellent scholar contributions OTOH, university channels, and the like. I know you're not talking about those, though. As to the educational, which is your focus, there's excellent stuff too IMO. But you have to be careful and scan for hours or trust in a chain of reliability. Curiously enough, I'm never happy with popularisations of physics, which is my degree. I'm quite happier with the other sciences' educational material. When you want to get a rough idea, rigour can wait... As to wikipedia,.. well. I'm in two mids, really. Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Robertson–Schrödinger_uncertainty_relations Nobody I've talked to in the physics department knows about the Schrödinger version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, except professor Shor, who pointed out to me that that was on Wikipedia. I'd found a new uncertainty principle for the anti-commutator of two operators!! Yes, it is correct. Yes, it is more general than Heisenberg's. No, it's not in any major book on QM. Yes, it is on Wikipedia. It is many decades old, actually. There is a value to Wikipedia, dangerous though it may be to take it as an oracle. In this day and age we must be careful with the sources, and keeping an open mind has become more difficult than ever. Cross checks is the rule for me in this age of information overflow. The counterpart to wikipedia is scholarpedia: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page But it takes ages to compile. Now, those are real experts, sometimes the people who contributed to develop the subject themselves. Also, topics tend to be quite high-brow. Good post **** You're right. Sometimes it's even the article itself that's not that good. But that's why the connection of information has to be valued more than ever. "Cross" as in "cross checks," "cross references" and the like. Takes time and effort, but it's always been in the character of humans to adapt to new situations. Developing your instinct for what is a good source of information and what's not will become part of the training process.

I'm Jack of too many trades (always at risk of spreading too thin), so if you ever catch me in mistake, please do tell me. That book I read twice and did all the questionnaires. Covers most that's needed to get the big picture with a reasonably detailed look at the molecular, and reasonably up to date. They use it at MIT introductory level. "Full description" is kind of scary, but I'll take a look when as soon as I can.

Thanks a lot for this. I'll wait...

That clinches the case. +1

Oh, I get it! Seriously, guys. Your verbs confuse me.

Something needs editing there. Too many things are getting every which way. LOL

And this is why simple drag won't do the job. +1

it's something I found in the Internet --> it's something I found on the Internet Your English is very good. I only need to fix minor details. [..] what I've deducted is that the radial wavefunction [...] --> [...] what I've deduced is that the radial wavefunction [...] That's certainly true for outer electrons. Are you sure it is also for inner electrons?

Is that imperative or present simple? Sorry, English verbs are so ambiguous...

Nice summary. +1.

I have a doubt --> I have a question which atom is going to be more diffuse (in this case the blue line) or penetrated (the red line). --> which electron is going to be more diffuse (in this case the blue line) or penetrating (the red line). Not necessarily wrong, but IMO it's clearer this way. Is this homework? 1s e- for S and Cl. You're dealing with very interior electrons here. So it looks like hydrogen-like electron states with a bigger Zeff and outer electrons pressing them harder against the nucleus.

Do you use the idea that... "Oh, thank goodness I had a choice yesterday!" on a daily basis? On my part, I've turned a bit cynical in this discussion too. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29998/was-socrates-a-critic-or-a-cynic#:~:text=Socrates%20as%20described%20in%20Plato's,in%20their%20reasoning%20and%20positions. Before you jump on my assumptions, statements, questions, quotations, I'm not comparing myself with Socrates, or Weinberg, or anybody else. I differ with Socrates among other things* in that I offer you an idea and I'm quite happy to have you tear it to shreds if it's wrong or flawed. I'm a collector of arguments. In case there is any doubt, I appreciate and admire you, @Eise, and I wish to learn from you. You've studied and thought about this topic far more than I have. *I would never drink the hemlock, but I would drink other people's ideas. I'm not afraid of alien ideas. If they're nonsense, they won't hurt me; if they're sensible, I will metabolize them.

Yeah, this sounds pretty scientifically and intellectually rigorous. Socialists and feminists, some decades ago, got together and figured out how to keep an army of scientists under their pay to go to Antarctica, take samples, and keep the world under their control so that fossil-fuel consumption suffered a severe cut so that... Sorry, what were we talking about?

Sorry. I suffer from a recapitulating disease.

So nothing happens necessarily? Or maybe some things do but others don't? By things not having to happen necessarily, you mean things that happened didn't have to happen, don't you?