Talk:Atomic orbital

message: I've pulled the following content from the article, because I think that at least one of the following conditions applies: (a) It's duplicated at Molecular orbital; (b) It's false. --Smack 03:56, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing content 

message: There was an anonymous edit correction (possibly?).  I am no expert in this topic, so please check if the minor edit was factual. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Worry not.  I have this page watchlisted.  That was a genuine mistake on my part.  I'm no expert myself, but it'll take a smarter-than-average vandal to get one past me.  --Smack 01:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon edit 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Atomic_orbital article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 01:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Atomic_orbital|Link suggestions]] 

message: I've amplified the introduction to say what an orbital is, and is not, and linked to the electron configuration and periodic table pages. The former page duplicates quite a bit of this one, but why not? Having the same material in several places may not be efficient storage wise, but can help the reader. Similarly, I reckon its helpful to have large topics slpit into smaller pages, so wouldn't want to consolidate everything together. 
I've also clarified the description of the p and d atomic orbitals, and their relation to the orbital's energy - it isn't the shape that determines it, but the detail of the probability density in the radial direction.--Ian 10:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  orbitals, shape and energy 

message: Below is a link to a video produced by astronauts at the international space station that shows wave patterns in a very large sphere of water (something not attainable on Earth). It reminded me of the various orbitals within an atom. It would be particularly useful for demonstrating the electron wave patterns of hydrogen. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaHLwla2WiI
Notice that at 0 & 180 deg. to the initial energy pulse, the oscillations resembled a p-orbital along that axis, but the globule retains the basic (lower energy) spherical shape throughout the course of its vibration, and eventually comes to rest back at that ground state (you can almost pick out the other two p-orbitals as well, but they are not well resolved. Also, the multitude of concentric rings running up and down the axis of the initial pulse seem to me to resemble one of the possible d-orbitals (dSubscript zSuperscript 2) and f-orbitals (I think it is the fSubscript x)Superscript 3Subscript - 3/5xrSuperscript 2). These patterns are all simultaneously present, oscillating from one orbital type to another and back again, or even appearing and vanishing again. I found it very interesting to see the one lobe of the p-orbital mimetic appearing in one direction, and then vanishing again as the lobe in the opposite direction appears. 
These vibrational patterns appear to me to be analogous to an atom absorbing a photon, kicking an electron to a higher orbital, followed by the atom relaxing back to its ground state as it remits the photon and that orbital shape dissapears (although the possibility for the orbital to reappear is always present when the next photon interacts with it). 
It would be interesting to see the result of using a more energentic pulse to initiate the globual's vibration. I suspect that at higher energy, a smaller water droplet would be ejected from the larger globual, similar to what is observed with the photoelectric effect, where only photons with sufficient energy can kick electrons from a metal plate to complete a circuit.
Many students find the entire subject to be confusing in the extreme, and seem to fixate on the idea that these orbitals are solid, tangible objects hiding under the surface of the atom like steel girders in a building). Perhaps this video could help (assuming no one here finds serious fault with my interpretation).
There are some other very interesting videos on cymatics (the study of wave behavior) given below:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ik6RgdoIMw
(The sequence from ~ 0:43 sec to 0:50 sec reminds me of benzene, with its alternating pi-bonds, and equivalent resonance structures.)
2. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2795869048702157810&q=cymatics&hl=en
3. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7253148167375317006&q=cymatics&hl=en
Since I am not certain that this wiki page is the best location for any this material, I felt that placing it here for further discussion would be best.
Thanks, DF 72.48.34.162 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible links for demonstrating the quantum atom 

message: The discussion regarding the shapes of orbitals is not complete until the Heisenberg picture view of the Hydrogen atom (and more generally: the Kepler problem) is included. The two sets of parameters that determine an orbit's shape and size in the classical Kepler problem (angular momentum and eccentricity/direction of closest approach) have magnitudes that assume perfectly well-defined eigenvalues in the quantum version of the Kepler problem for each orbital state; hence the shape of the orbital is, itself, well-defined. The uncertaintly actually applies to the orientation of the orbit, not its shape or size.
In the quantized problem the two vectors generate a constrained version of SO(4) (hence the term "Hydrogen SO(4)"); or E(3) for parabolic orbits, or SO(3,1) for hyperbolic orbits. Both the eccentricity e and the magnitude of the angular momentum |L| assume eigenvalues in the orbital states. The orbital shapes resulting from the eigenvalues both supersede and refine those that had historically been associated with the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits; namely that the major axis (a) is proportional to the square of the energy number n; the semilatus rectum is proportional to 1 + l(l + 1) (in contrast to Bohr-Sommerfeld's l squared), where l is the angular momentum quantum number. The terms in the correction 1 + l to the Bohr-Sommerfeld figure arise, respectively, from the uncertainty in the direction of the closest approach, and in the components of the angular momentum.
More generally, there should be a discussion concerning the Heisenberg picture and Hydrogen SO(4) -- either directly here, or provided by a link. -- Mark, 23 October 2006 '—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.89.32.142 (talk • contribs).'
:Hi Mark, the way you describe it here is probably too much for a high-school student (which probably use the wikipedia more to increase their knowledge than people with a degree in quantum mechanics), but I do agree, a good and complete picture is necessary.  Could you write either a paragraph about this subject, or indeed maybe a new articles, e.g. something like atomic orbital shape and molecular orbital shape?  I will be glad to help you with polishing, comments, but I am not really good in quantum mechanics, but hey, maybe I can learn something from it!
:Could you please [[wp:sig|sign}} by typing four tildes at the end of your contribution (i.e. ~~~~).  This converts to your signature automatically upon saving.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to the Heisenberg-Bohr-Sommerfeld Picture and Hydrogen SO(4) 

message: I'm distressed by these modifications.  I don't have the expertise to corroborate or dispute their factual correctness, but one thing is clear: they're inaccessible to anyone without extensive training in mathematics and quantum mechanics.  Wikipedia is not a physics reference text; it's supposed to be written so as to be readable by as many people as possible.  The corrections should be written into a special section, and the remainder of the article be left as it was. --Smack (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with the older first paragraph was that is was simply false.  Moreover an atomic orbital is a wave function.  Thus it is quite difficult to discuss about an atomic orbital without referring to the concept of wavefunction. Of course one can make it more pedagogic but pay attention not to write anything false. --131.220.68.177 12:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by User:147.231 

message: I'm still concerned that the pictures associated with this text as well as some of the links (appear to) show incorrect (ie non degenerate) d orbitals - I can't see the point of including an image for visualisation purposes if the image gives the wrong impression. I refer to [electon_orbitals.png] and also the external link "the orbitron" and "David Manthey's Orbital Viewer renders orbitals with n ≤ 30" also gives incorrect d orbitals - I can't check the other links at the moment. Previously I added a warning to the external links but that was removed.HappyVR 19:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  d orbitals and above 

message: So, is an orbital a "region in which an electron may be found", or is is a "mathematical description"?   There are geometric and a methematical definitions.  This needs to be clearer or we are looking at a confusing start to an inherently difficult topic.
Dr Thermo 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "In physics and chemistry, an atomic orbital is a mathematical description of the region in which an electron may be found around a single atom." (emph mine for diff)? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that sounds way better.  Amit 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orbital Definition

message: While presenting at the 1979 Sanibel Symposium, I had the occasion to ask Per-Olov Löwdin for his definition of an orbital. Without hesitation, he told me that it was first used by Robert S. Mulliken "in 1925 as the English translation of Schroedinger's use of the German word, 'Eigenfunktion'." Mulliken had been working in Germany in 1925 with many of the founders of Quantum Mechanics and particularly in 1927 with Friedrich Hund on the beginnings of molecular orbital theory. Mulliken presented his work at that time in Physical Review. Löwdin told me to look there for the first use of a hydrogen "orbital" in English. He also agreed that a suitable definition of an orbital would be "a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of an electron".
I will edit the definition to reflect this usage of the term as a mathematical function, but also connect it to the more general description of an orbital as a "region of space" that can be calculated from the function.
The advent of graphing calculators has enabled even high school students to grasp the definition of an orbital as a mathematical function. I invite educators to have their students graph the "simplified' 1s orbital, y = exp(-abs(Z.x)), where Z=1,2,3(Atomic Number). This simple exercise can display the effects of electronegativity and the fact that atoms and isoelectronic ions "decrease" their size in going to the right in a row in the periodic chart.
The bonding and antibonding sigma MO can also be displayed by y = exp(-abs(Zx+1) + or - exp(-abs(Zx-1) . After graphing functions, students can grasp the idea of "combining" functions (atomic orbitals) to get other functions (molecular orbitals), and what is meant by the + and - signs or the red/blue, white/gray colors of the orbitals. Laburke21:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Orbital Definition 

message: The third paragraph of the "Connection to uncertainty relation" section doesn't seem to tell me why an electron must be in a specific set of states. It basically says there are several laws that apply and more-or-less leaves it at that. (The Bohr model page similarly fails to explain why there are discrete quanta.) How is a reader to understand why an electron can't be at n=1.5? I think this article needs to explain why the wave state collapses to the states at n=1, 2, 3, .... Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why integer solutions? 

message: The "Connection to uncertainty relation" section states "...this does not mean that the electron could be anywhere in the universe" and concludes with the sentence "An electron's location... stops at the nucleus and before the next n-sphere orbital begins."  The first sentence of the "Shapes of orbitals" section states "... a given electron, regardless of which orbital it occupies, can at any moment be found at any distance from the nucleus and in any direction due to the uncertainty principle."  This apparently contradictory text will surely confuse an unknowledgeable reader.  It certainly confuses me!  The text of both sections needs to be amended by a subject matter expert to clear up this seeming contradiction.
Ross Fraser (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to do some of this. I eliminated the discussion of phase-space, which while correct is confusing because phase space is not a place! It's a mathematical graph of position and momentum, and although it has voxels of minimal size, these are voxels in a 6-d graph (3 dimensions of momentum, three of space), NOT volume cells in 3-space. So mentioning this as a way to limit particles in space (3-space) is bound to confuse the reader.  The basic reason Heisenberg implies a limitation to how closely you may localize bound particles in space, is that particles are waves, and the only way you can localize a wave is to localize a wave packet. Such packets need spreads in wavelength (which means momentum, in quantum mechanics). For low energy/momentum packets, the localization of the particle and wave-packet becomes bad, and thus the packet is large, and that's why the electron can't be found at any location smaller than a certain range of distances from the nucleus. But this is a property of all kinds of waves, as Bohr pointed out. The Heisenberg relationship just gives the scale of localization, once particles are connected with wave packets. Born supplies the last connection, with how you decide the connection of particle and wave: the complex congugate of the wave in any volume gives the probability density of finding the particle within that volume. SBHarris 02:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent contradiction in discussion of limitations in an electron's location 

message: I modified the table and went ahead and put it into the article (better off there than here). I also made an attempt to rectify issues of notation (physics vs. chem). The rest of the article could use an overhaul with respect to this issue, though. Csmallw (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for including the table in the article and improving the notation. A number of important questions have been raised on this talk page regarding these images and I am flattered by the compliments, but I'm really not knowledgeable enough to take this project further. The excellent little application used to generate the images can be found at http://www.orbitals.com/orb/ov.htm (as noted in each image's description) and I would ask that someone more knowledgeable than myself trawl through the details of the configuration of these orbitals to address the community's concerns & preferences. Dhatfield (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: I'm relatively new to quantum mechanics here so I might be wrong, but the article says p stands for principal, shouldn't it be principle? Psycholian (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is "principal" as in "first in rank, authority, importance" to quote my dictionary. p, s, d and f come from "sharp", "principal", "diffuse" and "fundamental" which were names given to various series of lines in the alkali metal spectra. --Bduke  (Discussion) 23:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see, thank you, just wondering. Psycholian (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remember, the principal is not actually your pal (a palpable lie), which is one more reason it's bad to think of school positions as the main use of the spelling "principal." Rather the principal is named because he or she is the principal teacher. "Principle" is used for maxims or laws, but "principal" is actually a quite common word in other contexts, including the spectrographic one here. SBHarris 08:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  P = Principal? 

message: SUMMARY: can we add the chemical symbols of the atoms that have each shape in the orbital shape table? 
A didactic suggestion.  The text states The orbital table shows all orbital configurations for the real hydrogen-like wave functions up to 7s, and therefore covers the simple electronic configuration for all elements in the periodic table up to radium.
So I take it each cell is a given element.  If the chemical symbol for that element were added to the table, then I for one would find this chart a key bridge between the world of physics (orbitals) and chemistry (bonds; the shape of molecules).  
Thanks for all this community has slogged through on the way to a "B" rating.  Perhaps this suggestion is a sign that the page has matured -- both correct and accessible. 
--jerry Jerry-va (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didactics:  Orbital shapes and the atoms that have them 

message: The article on electron cloud was never good, and the only thing saving it was one cite where Feynman uses the phrase, and the fact that an atoms' electron cloud isn't really the same as its atomic orbitals or even the sum of them. But the last is sort of getting at the right idea-- there is a sense in which for complex atoms the total electron cloud is ALMOST a sum of 1-electron orbitals for hydrogenic atoms out of the Schroedinger equation: if that weren't so, we wouldn't have the periodicity of the periodic table, which can be seen in the Schrodinger hydrogenic solution. That fact is a remarkable thing, when you think about it!  So, in order to get rid of the awful electron cloud Wiki (bring it up if you don't believe me) which ahs been sitting there with no improvement for a year with a merge tag, I've re-written the LEAD of this article, to make it clear that there is an electron cloud, and that it is "sort of" composed of atomic orbitals, but not exactly. It's an appoximation. And that about does it for the electron cloud--- and now it can be done-away-with. So I was bold and redirected it to here. I left the TALK page. You can look at the history for what it was like.  Feel free to rewrite this LEAD, but as you do, remember how it got to where it is, and what we're trying to do. Our best "picture" of the "electron cloud" of a complex atom, bad though it is, is a bunch of filled-in atomic orbitals ala Shroedinger, for 1-electron atoms. So it's in THIS article, if anywhere, that we have the chance to give a picture of what all these things look like, and how they go together. SBHarris 06:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard for me to be impartial about the electron cloud article, as I re-wrote a fair bit of it, and liked it, but apparently that left me in the minority (maybe of one or two). What is interesting about the electron cloud is really the unpredictability of electron. For me it is not the physics implications but instead those for philosophy and free will. To have free will, the future cannot be pre-ordained. I later found the schroedinger himself (What_Is_Life%3F) had thought about this but, unlike myself, did not believe the randomness was related to will. In any case, I believe this is the only area where physics has made headway on the "I think therefore I am" topic, ie the future cannot be calculated from the present. A significant advance on this in the realm of physics would dwarf all physics achievements to date.
I was glad to see that Feynman found simple intuitive ways of understanding things, including negotiating the math. His simplicity does not survive on a wiki though, as there is an academic force that has not embraced the value of making things simple, and it is easier to complicate topics than simplify them (Feynman spent about 10hrs to prepare each 1hr lecture). For example, look at the wiki article on Feynman diagrams, which have a fairly simple explanation in his Book QED (quantum electro dynamics). Hilbert has a similar stature in math. 
I was hoping that interested folks, especially the upcoming generation would achieve greater progress by knowing what is important, and the value of simple language and notation to achieve more with the limited time we all have. The term electron cloud was really a visual depiction for a first brush with the concepts needed to explain the double slit experiment, and understand shroedingers model of the atom. JeffTowers (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that the atmosphere analogy is incorrect and should be removed. However a solid particle is not a very good description either, and should probably not be mentioned either. Instead we should just use the usual description in physics books, which is a point particle whose probability of being found at each point is given by the wave function.Dirac66 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[electron cloud]] 

message: I am concerned by this wording: "Despite the obvious analogy to planets revolving around the Sun, electrons cannot be described as solid particles. In addition, atomic orbitals do not closely resemble a planet's elliptical path in ordinary atoms. A more accurate analogy might be that of a large and often oddly-shaped "atmosphere" (the electron), distributed around a relatively tiny planet (the atomic nucleus)."  Actually, that's a terrible analogy because it leads to wrong physics.  Firstly, electrons ARE point charges, as far as anyone can tell, and so a solid particle is not a bad description.  If you treat an electron as an extended charge distribution given by the ground state of the hydrogen atom and apply Gauss's Law you will see that the nucleus is almost entirely shielded; if this were the case hydrogen would not form molecules.  I guess I would say that there is a cloud which tells you where you are likely to find the point-particle electron, and that's just fundmentally not like a satellite in orbit or a smeared out cloud of charge.  Happy to discuss.Shrikeangel (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the atmosphere analogy is incorrect and should be removed. However a solid particle is not a very good description either, and should probably not be mentioned either. Instead we should just use the usual description in physics books, which is a point particle whose probability of being found at each point is given by the wave function.Dirac66 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussion on atmosphere analogy

message: message to User talk:71.217.73.148 
I see that you were adding a lot of informtion to atomic orbital that was simply mathematized versions of what is already discussed in the main article. I've moved it to an old version of spin-orbital, see here. But the math probably isn't appropriate here, but in the Schroedinger equation wiki. So don't be disheartened. Use the talk page. 
To other editors-- this editor was obviously adding material in good faith, but has been bitten and treated a bit shabbily, unless I've missed something. What he was doing certain wasn't vandalism.
SBHarris 01:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic orbital material 

message: There is a lengthy section in this article which is about the development of atomic models (ancient Greeks --> Dalton --> Rutherford --> Bohr), and not about the modern atomic orbital model at all.  It would be better to move this into the Atomic theory article, which discusses the historical development of atomic theory, and keep this article on subject.  Djr32 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I think there's still too much about the Bohr model in this article, might have another go at focusing the article on topic at some stage in the future.  Djr32 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Does anyone have any views on merging the articles Atomic orbital and Atomic orbital model?  I don't think that either of them work alone, and a combined article would seem more coherent.  Djr32 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is deletion, as there's not much to combine. These two articles have been evoloving in parallel, and the atomic orbital article (the OTHER one) is by far the most complete and detailed, and I don't think this one atomic orbital model has anything at all that the much longer one doesn't. This one should (again) just be deleted, much as it pains me to suggest it to the people who've put in the separate work. If they can find a few bits that aren't mentioned in the other, they can put them in (so it's a "merge" in the sense that a bit survives from the much smaller article). But after a quick read of this article, I can't find anything that qualifies, save perhaps for some new references. SBHarris 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sbharris. We don't need two articles on this topic, Atomic orbital is much more complete (42K vs. 9K), and also Atomic orbital is a better title. (Yes, atomic orbitals are a model, but that can be said of the title subject of many articles.) Dirac66 (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the atomic orbital article is much more comprehensive, and any merger would probably want to add what material we want to keep from this article to that one.  I suggested keeping "model" in the title because I would see the article as being about the modern QM model of the atom, rather than being about the mathematical solution to Schrodinger's equation for a central potential.  (It also keeps the pattern Plum pudding model, Rutherford model, Bohr model, Atomic orbital model.)  Likewise I would keep text from the atomic orbital model article that describes the model, though actually the model is probably described better in the atomic orbital article than in the atomic orbital model article!  Djr32 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever we name the result, our primary job is to find anything in atomic orbital model which is salvagable at all! That is, different or better than in the longer atomic orbital article. As for adding "model," to the name of THAT article, atomic orbitals are a feature of a larger quantum mechanical model of nature, but that article is called quantum mechanics not quantum mechanics model. Also, we do not have special relativity model, general relativity model, and so on. With precident for both systems of naming, I personally prefer the shorter one. Bohr model is better because it's old and outdated, and doesn't have an alternate name anyway. If atomic orbitals or quantum mechanics become old and outdated, that will be a better time to re-open this discussion. Not putting in "model" should not be taken to mean we're under the impression that this stuff is True, i.e., the Last Answer. Or that it isn't (in some sense) still a model for nature, instead of Nature Herself.  SBHarris 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, I've started this process off.  I have tended towards keeping everything from both articles, on the grounds that it's a lot easier to remove stuff that we don't want later, rather than to remember where it was and find it again.  Opinions welcome.  Djr32 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've duplicated the material here (which is probably where the "merge" suggestion should initially have gone, since it tends to disappear when the other article gets redirected). Speaking personally I have to say: "thanks for doing a messy but needed job". I would have deleted all of the other article, but I see that the parts of atomic orbital model that survive now, serve as overall segement introductions in THIS article, which is complicated enough that it can use them anyway, and isn't hurt. I just got through reading this article from start to finish, and it's fine.  BTW, I'm going to add a bit to the drum vibration section, which is interesting. Notice that the first set of modes (u0x) are the only ones where the center moves, exactly like the s orbital set, which are the only ones with a center antinode. None of the other drum modes have a moving center, and the same is true for the atom-- these are all counterparts to orbitals with angular momentum. In these images, the electron is mostly "likely" to be in the places where the surfaces are moving the most. The analogy is closer with a 2-D surface (a drum) than with full spherical harmonics on a sphere. This is strange, but appears to be due to the fact that this allows the drum surface displacement in the third-dimension, to correspond to the electron radial coordinate (and thus energy). Thus, the process of modeling energy for bits of a 2D surface, as 3D displacement, works to show energy intuitively as a 3D coordinate. SBHarris 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal: Atomic orbital and Atomic orbital model 

message: Today's edits by Spiral5800 call attention to the last paragraph of this section which begins "Although Heisenberg used infinite sets ...". The whole paragraph is still quite confusing and has now accumulated two "citation needed" and one "dubious - discuss" tags. My opinion is that it adds little to the article and that we should just delete this paragraph. Comments? Dirac66 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with this sentiment.   Lacking the addition of quality citations, it should go.  Spiral5800 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: It appears this has been taken care of. Though I consider the matter of Heisenberg's work implying that there is a non-zero probability of an atom's electrons being found at arbitrarily large distances from its nucleus to be interesting,  here - in the context it was mentioned - citations were needed and it was more an interesting factoid than a necessary issue for this article.  Spiral5800 (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to uncertainty relation - delete dubious paragraph? 

message: In lieu of putting up the template noting a need for more inline citations in this article, I instead am bringing up this issue here.  For an article of this length and detail, I find myself longing for more inline citations through which I can fact-check various claims.  I also noticed that in addition to a significantly noticible lack of inline citations, this article has only 15 cited references at the end.  Not only do we need more inline citations, but more sources as well.  
The template is obtrusive and because I otherwise find this to be a rather high quality article, I decided against the  template in favor of hopefully fruitful discussion and eventual resolution here.  Thanks!  Spiral5800 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations 

message: I'm confused about this chart in the orbital energy section:
 	s 	p 	d 	f 	g
1	1 	  	  	  	
2	2 	3 	  	  	
3	4 	5 	7 	  	
4	6 	8 	10	13	
5	9 	11	14	17	21
6	12	15	18	22	25
7	16	19	23	26	29
8	20	24	27	30	32
Why is the 8p subshell followed by the 6g subshell?  Shouldn't it be followed by the 9s?  Or am I missing something?  The pattern displayed for the first 20 subshells would seem to imply that it should be:
 	s 	p 	d 	f 	g
1	1 	  	  	  	
2	2 	3 	  	  	
3	4 	5 	7 	  	
4	6 	8 	10	13	
5	9 	11	14	17	21
6	12	15	18	22	26
7	16	19	23	27	
8	20	24	28	  	
9	25	29	  	  	
Is the chart given in the article correct?  If so, why is the pattern broken after 8p? XinaNicole (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your version is correct. Thank you for pointing out this error. The paragraph preceding this table says that there are 24 subshells, so I suspect that an earlier version of the table stopped at 24, and someone came along and continued the table by filling the wrong boxes. So I have just deleted the values after 24, since only 19 are needed to describe all currently known chemical elements. Dirac66 (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital Energy chart 

message: In the last paragraph of the section "The Bohr Atom," shouldn't it be "and the n=3 state can hold 18 electrons"?
JKW (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It can hold 18 but it only holds 8 in argon. I'll reword this sentence and eliminate "can hold". Dirac66 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Rule for the maximal number of electrons with principal quantum number n, is 2n2. Thus for n=3 you get 2*3^2 = 18. For n=4, it's 2*4^2 = 32. SBHarris 18:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of electrons in the n=3 state 

message: Recently an editor has changed a lot of nice simple  |ψ|s into  |ψ(r,θ,φ)|s and I don't see that this helps at all, except to make it uglier and more complicated in notation. After all, these are the very same graphs as if you used (say) |ψ(x,y,z)|s or any other spacial coordinate choice.  Why don't you just change them back to the simpler form? Are you trying to show a spacial dependence? Just say they're being graphed  in terms of spacial dependence and then you don't confuse the reader (by implication) into thinking that perhaps choice of coordinate systems makes some kind of difference. SBHarris 19:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Dr Sb, the ugly truth is that there were no parameters for the functions until I put them in. There is no better way of pointing out to beginners the fact that an atomic orbital, Ψ, is a mathematical function, thus Ψ(), that depends on the coordinates of ONE electron in the atom, thus Ψ(x,y,z) than to put it right up there in the titles of the graphics.  It doesn't matter which coordinate system is used, ultimately, and the text mentions which coordinate systems are used for atoms and molecules. Ease of solving the Schrödinger Equation (Hartree-Fock equations for us, Brian) is what determines the use of ugly spherical coordinates for isolated atoms, (very ugly) cylindrical for diatomics and linear triatomics, or (pretty) cartesians for molecules, or even (Halloween scary) complex variables for atoms in certain fields. BTW, I don't mind your using my name or user-name instead of "an editor". Laburke (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spherical or cartesian coords for wave functions-- it doesn't matter to the graph or most places (just makes the radially symmetric equation easier to solve) 

message: Earlier today the edit summary "Revert vandalism" was used to describe the removal of the sentence "Atomic orbitals are the regions or volumes in space in which the probability of finding electrons is highest" and its replacement by the correct mathematical definition of an orbital as a one-electron function. While I do agree with the edit, I think the word "vandalism" should be reserved for edits which are totally irrelevant to the article, or so obviously incorrect that the error must be deliberate. In this case the sentence removed is a simplistic description which is often repeated or implied by teachers at an elementary level, so it is most probably an honest attempt which should be described as a "good-faith edit" or even an "imprecise description" since it has some merit. 
I have taught both theoretical (quantum) chemistry and first-year chemistry. I try to tell students that an orbital is a mathematical one-electron function. But in first year when their eyes glaze over and they ask what the orbital drawings mean, the usual answer is that they show the region in space in which the probability of finding electrons is highest for a given quantum state. Yes I know, the drawing is not the orbital, but at a first-year (or high-school) level this is not very clear. Dirac66 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the wording that was reverted was not "vandalism". However, the editor did include vandalism in one of his edits at that time, which he then undid when he inserted the wording that was reverted today, so I understand the ease by which one might apply that label to the whole set of edits. DMacks (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vandalism" vs "good-faith edits" 

message: In the current article these lines don't make sense to me:
If such a particle were gravitationally bound to the Earth it would not escape, but would pursue a series of passes in which it always slowed at some maximal distance into space, but had its maximal velocity at the Earth's center (this "orbit" would have an orbital eccentricity of 1.0). If such a particle also had a wave nature, it would have the highest probability of being located where its velocity and momentum were highest, which would be at the Earth's core.
Generally speaking this is wrong. The particle would have the highest probability of being found where its velocity is lowest. This is because the particle spends a higher fraction of its time in locations where its velocity is lowest. The above either needs to be completely removed or better explained.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by O. Harris (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, this was a rubbish, I [ fixed it]. I can remember that I heard some presentation about such limits of Keplerian orbits, but IMHO it is next to a trivial fact about cofocal ellipses. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Qualitative understanding of shapes" section  

message: At the end of Bohr's Atom section there is following statement:
"Ultimately, the relationship between orbital occupation and chemical behavior was resolved by the discovery of modern quantum mechanics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Namely in helium, all n=1 states are fully occupied; the same for n=1 and n=2 in neon."
But in next inert gas Ar n=3 is not fully occupied, so as for Kr, Xe and Rn n=4,5 and 6 are not fully occupied. Instead, n=3 is fully occupied for Zn and n=4 is fully occupied in Yb. Therefore, this is a poor basis for the statement which implies that all noble gases are characterized by closed electron shells.
Drova (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you were correct. I have now rewritten this paragraph to specify which subshells are full in argon. Dirac66 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with "Bohr's Atom" section 

message: user:AWomanWithAPlan is clearly formerly blocked IP user 103.10.64.20, see , and has now reverted 3 times a change two editors want. I've had it. SBHarris 06:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppets 

message: Why is J omitted? 108.65.83.125 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, at last, a reasonable question. Because some languages do not distinguish between 'i' and 'j'. See Spectroscopic notation. Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now included your answer in the article, citing the same source as in Spectroscopic notation. Dirac66 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission of J 

message: I have concerns about two statements:
* " The three p-orbitals for n = 2 have the form of two ellipsoids with a point of tangency at the nucleus (the two-lobed shape is sometimes referred to as a "dumbbell"—there are two lobes pointing in opposite directions from each other)."
* "Four of the five d-orbitals for n = 3 look similar, each with four pear-shaped lobes, each lobe tangent at right angles to two others, and the centers of all four lying in one plane."
If one is plotting the spherical harmonic and only giving the magnitude of that function in a certain direction (that is, plotting Y as a distance for each θ and φ), then these are accurate. But this is deceptive, since Y contributes to a magnitude of ψ at each point in space.
It's more common (and probably more correct) to plot an isosurface, all the values of ψ at a triple (x,y,z) or (r,θ,φ). These isosurfaces cannot be tangent to each other (or to the nodal plane), since for all any arbitrary value of |ψ| > 0, the distance of the closest point of an isosurface is always going to be at a positive, non-zero distance away from zero. This misconception is presented in a number of Journal of Chemical Education and articles and quantum chemistry textbooks. Olin (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  lobes as tangent 

message: I find it interesting that there can be no orbital below s and yet Muon orbitals are below s.
Anyone care to explain this?
: A Muon is not an electron so the Fermi exclusion principle does not apply between muons and electrons.  The muon forms its own tight orbital, irrespective of the electrons.  From the electrons point of view what they see is a new "nucleus" with an atomic number = #protons - #muons, and the atom chemically behaves as if it had this new atomic number. Cloudswrest (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Explain Muons sub-s orbital? 

message: The current article has
 px = (p_1 + p_-1)/Sqrt[2]
when I simplify this, I get
 Exp[- constant r] y.
And for
 py = (p_1 - p_-1)/i Sqrt[2]
I get 
 Exp[- constant r] x.
Thus, I think they are likely backwards in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WCraigCarter (talk • contribs) 09:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of px and py: I think they are reversed. 

message: The black hole's central region is so degenerate that it looks like the atomic orbitals, and has different energy levels (both the singularity and the ringularity violate Planckian shrinkage limits; the Big Bang exploded [it didn't shrink in more] because nothing can violate the Planckian threshold of degeneracy = maximal degeneracy = precosmic state; actually the black hole's central region less degenerate than the "precosmic state"). But we need more on the specifics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4114:20de:49:ffd3:fa6f:fc35 (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black hole central region 

message: I recently made a draft page you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gallery_of_Atomic_Orbitals which was rejected. I think much of the content that appeared there would clarify some topics in this article. I think this article along with hydrogen atom and hydrogen-like atom are overcluttered and share a lot of redundant information. This is unfortunate and makes me not want to put in more material to clutter further, but perhaps the way of Wikipedia is to jam in too much information, sometimes in bad form, and then clean it up after the fact.. or don't.. I don't know.
In any case I propose to make the following adjustments: (1) Reformat the existing table of spherical harmonics to match that on the draft page. This is a more logical sorting that showcases that patterns between orbitals much better. (2) include a second table of complex orbitals next to the real orbitals for comparison. (3) ensure these tables follow the Condon-Shortley phase for consistency with the Table of spherical harmonics. (4) general cleanup of the text to be more concise in explaining the geometry of orbitals, (5) Include the formula for the solution to the Schrodinger equation for hydrogen like atoms on this page.
Regarding point (5), I know that that equation already appears on Hydrogen-like atom and hydrogen atom, but I don't understand why it appears there and not here. If that equation can't appear on this page then I don't think visualizations of those orbitals should appear so prolifically on this page.  Regarding point (3) above, unfortunately the existing table of real spherical harmonics, while nice, and of very high quality, does not follow the Condon-Shortley phase as far as I can tell. Unfortunately this will spoil a little bit the comparison between real and complex orbitals, so long term it would be best to generate new images in the table which do follow that phase convention.
Folks should let me know if they think any of these updates would be "Wikipedia worthy" or valuable otherwise and I can get to work on them. Especially let me know what should be done about the inclusion of the Hydrogen orbital equation.. my main point there is that it is silly to have this page with so many orbitals visualized but without the equation. It makes the pictures difficult to talk about. My opinion is that this is the page that should have the equation and visualizations, and if that is too much for one page then it should be broken out into a specific page like the draft page I already made, not smattered across three largely redundant pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistar48 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for page improvements: