joigus

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene What I said about fear and anxiety is taken from a great series of conferences from CARTA (Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny). The speaker is Joseph LeDoux: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmZpfBYbSSA Any series from CARTA is worth taking a look. Thanks a lot for this. +1.

I concur. I should have read this more carefully. Time doesn't react to anything, or travel.

Analogies are sometimes interesting, but very limited. The speed of photons is not really a limiting speed. Photons have a constant speed no matter how you look at them. Your analogy would be more appropriate for massive particles under constant force (hyperbolic motion). But the problem is: What kind drag motion represents photons then? What's more similar to a drag due to vacuum is the resistance due to the vacuum scalar field at inflationary times previous to re-heating (inflaton drag force: google for "inflation as viscous force" or similar). In that case the analogy can be taken to be closer to what you suggest AFAIK.

First religions (hunter-gatherers)... Difficult to say. Expert paleontologists and anthropologists seem to think religion had to do with summoning the big game, while honouring them when they died or they killed one of your hunters. The monument at Gobekli Tepe is very clear that pre-agriculture was all about animals, wild animals. Cave paintings in France (Lascaux) and Spain (Altamira) 10.000 years before, too. Agriculturalists were mostly concerned with the Sun, the seasons and the ancestors (the ones who gained the land). The shift towards considering the ancestors as mythical, stylized, abstract figures in Ain Ghazal is very clear. They started making clay decorations of skulls and ended up depicting very abstract, impossibly stylized individuals. People in the Bronce Age and Iron Age were more concerned with lordship. The overlord was the one who taxed you and killed you if you didn't cough up the money (grain, oil,...). Overlordship was the driving force, so I think it's no wonder that people started thinking in terms of one lord above all other lords. Akhenaton (Tutankhamon's father) was the first to be bold enough to declare one god and see himself as the human image of that god. Others followed the formula. It's not just about fear, IMO, it's about fear and anxiety. Fear is about the past and has to do more with the snake and the wolf, that you're mentioning; anxiety is about the future: death, providing for your offspring, etc. What does the future have in store for us? I can argue and document more about this and give sources, in case anyone's interested. Fear can be handled by the amygdala in your brain. Anxiety is more complex. I agree almost 100 % with this. +1 There are many more things. Probably one of the most important was the risks involved in giving birth. I almost forgot. Again, anxiety, rather than fear. And I almost forgot and went completely off-topic. Evolutionary arguments for religion are not biological, but based on the theory of memes, by Richard Dawkins, and argued for very eloquently by Daniel Dennett. Religions are like viri, or parasites, they evolve because they do well, not because they favour their host. They clearly don't.

Just to add info. The oxygen in photosynthesis comes from the breaking up of water molecules. The possibility that it came from CO2 has been ruled out experimentally by using isotopic tracers. https://www.amazon.com/Life-Science-William-K-Purves/dp/0716798565 (chapter 8: Identifying Photosynthetic Reactants and Products) Water was very abundant in the atmosphere after the late heavy bombardment.

Exactly. In the Copenhagen interpretation, every partial wave, tagged by a potential outcome, keeps evolving until a measurement is made. When such measurement is made, a sudden change in the wave function is produced, called the wave packet reduction, wave function collapse, or normalized projection of the state. This mathematical operation is incompatible with the Schrödinger equation. The partial waves that carried with them other possible results simply stop evolving. In the MWI, on the contrary, every time a measurement is made, a universe implementing that result is set in motion, so to speak.

I don't know what light-resistant means. Do you mean a perfect absorber, like all metals are? Aluminum foil is a very good absorber of light. Cover your mobile phone with it and have someone try to call you. You'll see what I mean.

Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. It can't be photons. It can't be neutrinos either. It should be "cold."