Timeline for Energy of orbitals under a crystal field
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2016 at 23:44 | comment | added | StevieD | Others must go down to maintain an overall conservation of energy. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 23:39 | comment | added | StevieD | Yes Jan, I meant that the fact that they only accommodate 10 is evidence that there can only be 5 subshells of d orbitals. Likewise the ml quantum number agrees. The waveform of these orbitals may be represented as the sum of other waveforms, but these don't have a physical representation....I.e. it's just an artifact of the math. When in a ligand field the orbitals split in such a way that the net sum of the orbital energies are 0, that is they maintain the barycenter. If orbitals go up in energy due to repulsion between ligand orbitals and metal orbitals (spacial overlap) then | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 23:08 | comment | added | Jan | @StevieD No to your first comment, because QC tells us that there is only space for ten. Just because something can mathematically extend in a beautiful way doesn’t mean it does. Partial yes to your second comment. But a professor of mine actually used that explanation and showed us how to look at a specific orbital representation. I have forgotten where to find it so I cannot reproduce it, unfortunately =C. | |
| Mar 25, 2016 at 8:15 | comment | added | StevieD | If they 'actually form a group of three' then the d-orbital manifold would be able to hold 12 electrons. These images, are they mathematical representations or empirically determined, such as in doi:10.1038/nature03183? I'm pretty sure even the more complicated molecular orbitals people have imaged look surprisingly like we thought they should. | |
| Mar 23, 2016 at 2:15 | vote | accept | Abhirikshma | ||
| Mar 21, 2016 at 1:33 | history | answered | Jan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |