Talk:Hydrogen atom

message: I've made a newer version of the density function image, i think it should replace the old one.
Yey or ney?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoorLeno (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Density function image

message: The discussion of the speed of the electron stated that it "moved" at 1/100 the speed of light.  My research shows that it's 1/10, and doesn't apply to the innermost shell.  The primer I linked to includes the math.  —DÅ‚ugosz
:The speed of the electron is not a precisely definable quantity in a given energy state. However, the low-energy states have v/c on the order of the fine structure constant, which is closer in order of magnitude to 1/100 than 1/10.--76.81.164.27 05:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativistic effects of electron 

message: I'm a physics major at the University of Rochester, and came here to look up an equation for the ionization energy for the hydrogen atom for my statistical mechanics class. To my surprise, I found a section in the hydrogen atom article entitled "Schrodinger's Paradox". I deleted the section because it is utter pseudoscience and is misleading on a number of grounds. It's also original research, which has no business being on wiki. It was also biased towards the idea being correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.144.60 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:200.222.237.108 has been going around adding fringe science junk to various articles. You just caught a chunk of it. Sorry. SBHarris 02:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted "Schrodinger's Paradox" Stuff 

message: Although the wave function may be correct for a particular definition of the Generalized Laguerre polynomials, the expression in the article (before my edit) was not if we use the definition in the Laguerre polynomials. I think we should be coherent with the other articles, so I have changed the expression for the wave function to use those polynomials. 
(I'm new at editing wikipedia, so if I haven't done anything properly, I would like you to tell me, please. Thank you).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by John_C_PI (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 December 2005
:It seems to me that now the Laguerre polynomials in Wiki is consistent with the one with (n+l)! instead of (n+l)!3.But I  want someone to confirm this before I edit the page.Send me a message if anyone agrees or disagrees with me.--Netheril96 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wave function 

message: Some minor things to adjust before the GA is awarded :
* Needs just a bit more references.
* The Mathematical summary of eigenstates of hydrogen atom section is really tough to understand by itself, it needs more text surrounding it. Lincher 15:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA 
on hold
 failed

message: The level of this article is wildly inappropriate for the general reader. Much of the section "Features going beyond the Schrödinger solution" doesn't belong in this article. --76.81.164.27 05:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! David F (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: poorly written

message: Atomic hydrogen and Hydrogen atom do NOT have overlapping meanings.  This article is junk.
Was it written by a non-native English speaker?71.31.145.210 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They can be used interchangeably (say, for isolated hydrogen atoms), or can have different meanings (as in compounds), thus I disagree. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Atomic hydrogen

message: "Eccess energy" and "binding energy" links to the same article, What is the diference? 80.24.186.207 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sign. 149.217.1.6 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The explanation (the difference between an isotope's mass number and its actual mass in AMU (times c2, of course)) can be found at "Mass excess"; I have fixed the redirect.  --DWIII (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eccess and Binding energy

message: Is H-1 a proper notation for the hydrogen atom?  The only article in which I've seen it used is Big Bang nucleosynthesis. It is also not mentioned in the disambiguation page H-1. Should it be added to this page?  --George100 (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You usually write either "1H" or "hydrogen-1". BTW, why does it say "This article primarily concerns hydrogen-1", and why does hydrogen-1 redirect here? I see absolutely no reason why the stuff in this article can't apply to deuterium or tritium. -- Army1987 (t — c) 10:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: H-1

message: I've chaged the definition of j: IIUC j is not an integer (it is an integer +/- 1/2). I've also added to the definition to clarify the meaning of 'total angular momentum'. I'm a bit rusty on this so please check! --Kevin Cowtan (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete and incorrect definition of j 

message: there seems to be a bit of a muddle here concerning the electron spin and the schrodinger equation. the normal unmodified schrodinger equation describes   the behaviour of a spin zero particle, and as such will predict that a hydrogen atom is possessed of zero angular momentum in the ground state, contrary to what is observed. it is only when one steps up to the pauli a.k.a schrodinger-pauli equation  that this defect is corrected. (or, of course, the fully relativistic dirac equation). this is not at all made clear in the present state of the article (march 2010), and will i fear need a deal of work to unravel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.52.132 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  electron spin -- schrodinger equation /  pauli equation  /dirac equation 

message: The diameter is given as 2.4 Angstroms, or "twice the Bohr radius." In reality the correct diameter is about 1.1 Angstroms-- about half this. I realize these things are not exact, but 1.1 A is much closer than 2.4 Angstroms. The original artist and uploader apparently is no longer active. I wonder if anybody would like to re-do this illustration? SBHarris 04:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong diameter for illustration 

message: There's a figure in the text showing a constant probability surface for the 4,3,1 state, the caption for which says, "The solid body contains 45% of the electron's probability."  This is pretty ambiguous language, and it seems like it would be easy to misunderstand unless you already knew what it's supposed to mean; I mean, it contains "45% of the probability" for position measurements.  I'm going to be bold and change it to say s/t like "3D illustration of the eigenstate \psi_{4,3,1}.  Electrons in this state are 45% likely to be found within the solid body shown."  I think this is a bit more precise, but it doesn't quite capture the fact that electrons aren't inside that space "45% of the time"; rather, position measurements are 45% likely to find them in that space.  I haven't come up with a way to emphasize this subtle but key point in any kind of succinct way.  I invite further suggestions for improved language. Flies 1 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eigenstate 4,3,1, figure caption 

message: In this edit I removed the following text which had just been added by an anon to the Quantum theoretical analysis section of the article:
Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent editorial comments moved here from the article 

message: I removed the sentence about dark matter and dark energy from the lead paragraph because it was distracting.  I left a link to the word "baryonic" in the preceding sentence, and that article mentions dark (non-baryonic) matter.  If someone feels strongly about pointing out the difference between hydrogen and dark matter, I suggest it belongs somewhere other than the opening paragraph. -LesPaul75talk 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark matter 

message: The binding energy of the hydrogen atom is listed as "0.000± 0.0000 keV".  It's actually about 13.6 eV, although I don't know the uncertainty. Comment by ‎128.111.18.19
:That part of the infobox is called Nuclide data, and what is meant is the Nuclear binding energy to hold the nucleus together. Since there is only one nucleon, this is automatically zero. The atomic binding energy is 13.6 eV as you say, and is normally called the ionization energy.
:I agree that this is confusing, and the entry really should be changed to say Nuclear binding energy. But I can't figure out how to make that change since the infobox only accepts labels that are on the preprogrammed template. Perhaps we should just delete that line from the infobox. Dirac66 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong binding energy 

message: In the Bohr-Sommerfeld Model description, the symbol ε0 is referred to as "permeability."  It should be "permittivity of free space."  The symbol μ0 would be "permeability."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick0927 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Bohr-Sommerfeld Description 

message: Some reactions of the solvated electron give atomic hydrogen and have electrochemical importance. I think it should be mentioned in article.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Step 1: a strong reference supporting the assertion. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic hydrogen in relation to solvated electron and standard electrode potential

message: I've seen some texts saying that the µ letter refers to the reduced mass of the electron and the nucleus. I wonder why some texts (including Wikipedia) says that. In no moment during the formulation of the problem in Schrödinger equation appears the mass of the nucleus. The only reference of the nucleus is in the form of a Coulomb Potential. The letter µ refers to the electron mass, not to the reduced mass.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heitorpb (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Reduced mass is correct in this problem. Since the nucleus has a finite mass (even if it is much heavier the electron), it can move and has some kinetic energy which must be included in the total energy of the atom. Introducing the reduced mass allows the two-body problem (electron plus nucleus) to be transformed into an equivalent one-body problem, since the total (electron plus nuclear) kinetic energy is equal to an equivalent kinetic energy calculated with the reduced mass and the relative velocity. This is discussed in the article on reduced mass.Dirac66 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduced mass in solution to Schrödinger eq? 

message: I suggest to replace the picture in the info box (excerpt from table of nuclides) by something that shows the atom, e.g. file "Bohr model.jpg". The table of nuclides shows nuclear properties (and the isotopes separately); but here we are dealing with the atom. -- Wassermaus (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in info box should show the atom 

message: The formulation of \varphi(p,\theta_p,\varphi_p) involving a normalised product of a Gegenbauer polynomial and a spherical harmonic could actually be missleading. According to J.R. Lombardi (Chemical Physics 538 (2020) 110886, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphys.2020.110886), the missconception stems from the fact that the momentum representation of a position-space wave function is its Fourier transform if and only if it is expressed in Cartesian coordinates. It is true that the Fourier transform of the spherical-coordinate wave function (as also performed in Bransden et al.) gives a mathematically correct expression, but these variables can not be interpreted as representations of momentum in quantum mechanics: they do not fulfill the standard commutation relation w.r.t. their position operator counterparts in curvlinear coordinates. As elaborated by Lombardi et al., the deWitt-transformation gives properly transformed and physically more reasonable expressions (where the spherical part no longer can be represented by spherical harmonics) with variables fulfilling the commutation relations. This missconception unfortunately is deeply rooted now in QM teaching and got replicated in quite some books, partly also because Fock, Pauling and Hylleraas fell for it.
2003:F4:8F20:4A00:FDA1:8FE7:ED46:8A30 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Momentum representation of the Hydrogen atom is unphysical