h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Being a good theoretician or researcher is not necessarily commensurate with being a good teacher. It is somewhat understandable that someone who has taken the effort to go through all the steps to prove or demonstrate what they have, would be interested in going over all that stuff again for those slower or newer to the material than they are.

That's why teaching is a profession that requires understanding and a desire to comminicate that understanding and not necessarily good research skills. That, incidentally, is the basic flaw in the 'publish or perish' attitude of most universities.

Barton

*sigh*

but what the heck... fortunately there's people like us. (ego-massage)

Do you think the entry is good to go?

I do, short of a few minor spelling and grammar things which I would suggest leaving for the sub-editor to feel good about catching. In any case, I don't have the time or inclination to continue correcting your already excellent but still foreign English. I'm just not that kind of pedant.

As far as content goes, I think its there and in a proper form for the guide. I'd have to defer to any other chemistry and physics professionals out there, I'm just your local neighborhood dillitante.

Barton

Some minor changes implemented here (link to the pauli principle removed and some redactional little changes)

Comments welcome (as usual).

HELL

How has this still not made it into the guide?
Well it's criminal, it really is: This article is definitely ready for the sub editors in my opinion. So here I am, bumping it back to the top of the list for a few seconds at least, and saying well done Hell, its a nice article.

vp

Interesting, enjoyable, and not too technical - which means it will be meaningful to readers without degrees in quantum physics.

Hi Hell. Excellent entry! Suggestion... mention the Bohr model (you must think I'm related to Bohr the way I keep pushing this! ). In the UK at least, the first thing you learn about atoms is the Bohr model, then move on to explanation as you have it here. This is not to suggest that your entry is incomplete - quite the contrary. Just think it may be nice to have a perspective on what came before this understanding.
by the way, love the phrase "went Nobel in 1945"!

Hi Hell,

Nits to pick, and a question, but basically I'd call this finished.

Nit #1: confuse laymen and students
IMO, you might want to change 'laymen' to 'lay people' - it's a worthwhile habit to not use the masculine to indicate all people, and for anyone whose first language was gendered, also a tricky one to develop.

Nit #2: can can occupy one orbital at a time (this is also known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle4).
Repeated word 'can'

Nit#3: maximum amount of electrons in the set
That should read 'maximum number of electrons...'

FYI, as you are a non-native writer (though you're a damned good one - better than most native writers ) There's a very simple rule: 'Amount', 'less', and 'much' are used for quantities like 'milk', 'mileage', and 'cognitive development', which cannot be counted.
'Number', 'fewer', and 'many' are used for quantities like 'nits', 'coffee beans', and 'long posts', which can be counted.

Question:

I found the mention of the Periodic Table cleared up some of the confusion I was having at the source of that triangular graph. Do you want to mention it earlier in the article? Most of us remember that the atoms become more complex as one moves along the Periodic Table, and that might make your subsequent discussion of orbitals, and how many electrons are in each, etc. more intuitive to people even less math-and-sciency than I (which is at least half the population, at a guess).

That is just a suggestion, and not at all necessary. I enjoyed reading this piece.

Tangential question just out of personal interest: is it correct, then, to say that an 'orbital' is the area defined as where there is a *probability* of the presence of electrons? I got that impression from the 'cloud' idea. They may be there, or may not be there, but there are defined areas where they are likely to be, and others where they are not? If I totally botched that up, you might want to use shorter words and simpler concepts, for the Hopelessly Science Impaired.

Thanks for the article!

Arpeggio, for LeKZ (who had the Periodic Table memorised at the age of 13, and now get lost after Neon)

Hi everybody, I am really glad you all liked the entry.

Hoovooloo: I *really* thought you were related to Bohr until I read your disclaimer. Hyulk, hyulk (I'll think about inserting him in here somewhere -- maybe you'd want to write a piece like: "The Bohr Model - Convenient Fiction Part Two" and I'd just squeeze him in briefly)

Arpeggio: *Of course* it's lay people, it must have slipped out of my fingers - thanks for pointing that out. Oh, and thanks too for picking all the other trifles, they're gone now; and my english is slowly getting better and better - I used to be *damn*-good in english, but that is rapidly deteriorating since it's not my native language... Mentioning the Per. Table earlier: Hmm, I wanted to explain *why* the periodic table looks the way it looks like and not use the Per. Table to explain why the electrons are filled into the oribtals in that particular way... (I'll have a look at it anyway).

Your 'question': Yes, it's basically like you understood it. The orbital is actually not just the area but the volume (but that is just a minor detail), where an electron is most likely to be found in. The orbital, those classical drawings you find in textbooks that look like handles, is the volume where electrons are in for 90% of the time. They 'can' be anywhere (in Brazil drinking a Pina-Colada or on the other end of the Galaxy) though, but this is VERY improbable. It's really more or less sort of kinda like a cloud, you have to draw a limit, but the edges are fuzzy, so you settle for the limit where you'd have the volume with 90% of all the water...

Thank you all again,

HELL

Some comments:

Would you like to explain why the shells are labelled s, p, d, f and so on? Is it interesting?

I think it would be better if you spelled out the numbers in the following sentence:

"There is 1 s-orbital, 3 p-orbitals, 5 d-orbitals, 7 f-orbitals, etc."

This would look better as:

"There is one s-orbital, three p-orbitals, five d-orbitals, seven f-orbitals and so on."

As it is, the digits look too much like code numbers.

The line "1s(2) 2s(2) 2p(6) 3s(2) 3p(6) 4s(2) 3d(10) 4p(6) 5s(2) 4d(10) .." would be easier if it was in the form of a table.

"emmission" should be "emission"

"austrian" should be "Austrian"

Well done!

Splendid entry. Clear & not too full of jargon.

I would simply add to your final list that a knowledge of orbitals and the electrons in them is essential to the idea of "doping" semi-conductors, which alows such great creations as h2g2 to exist!

Ugi

OK I'll add/correct all mentioned stuff

The table... Hmm could the Editor/Sub Editor do it? Because I'm not sure how many space to leave beside every digit so that it looks fantastic...

Ugi: OK interesting point, I'll do it. BUT: the knowledge of orbitals and electrons is essential for "calculating atomic and molecular properties" is the same and already in there.

Thanks again,

HELL

Hell:

Umm, like the 'Chaos Theory' (I think the science has been renamed since Glieck's book) probability 'butterfly'- it never says something can't occur anywhere else, but these are the more likely places? Then probability slinks off to the outer margins in near-impossibility in some sort of asymptotic function, or am I making stuff up as I go along?

I get 'volume' vs. 'area' (duh, daft of me to have written 'area'). This is 3D. smiley they need.

Don't worry about moving the Periodic Table if you put it where you did for that reason. The moment I read that sentence, everything (with the exception of the actual letters 's' etc -- which I assumed to be arbitrary convention) fell into place.

Really a good article and thank you for jogging my memory re science I studied 27 years ago, and adding to it

Arpeggio, for LeKZ

Oops hope Mandelbrot doesn't see this - you forgot to mention Him...

Anyway, yes, yes... it sort of drifts that way... Probabilities, Improbabilities, butterflies, cigarette smoke patterns, me and my pina-colada and vanishing wave-functions at infinity...

About the 's' and 'p'... I've added a footnote - dunno if you read it - if you DID, skip the next part and go directly to the part that goes "Thanks Arpeggio..." more at the end of this post -- I've added a footnote to explain where these letters come from, namely from their spectral appearance: (s)harp because the lines associated with that shell-subset were sharp (p)rincipal because they were in the visible part of the spectrum and used mainly to identify the substance -- and therefore important or principal (d)iffuse because these lines are blurred and (f)undamental because someone thought they were fundamental (after that things loose deeper meaning and get alphabetical) g,h,i,...

Thanks Arpeggio (for LeKZ), it's always nice to hear from you,

HELL

If the 1s(2) 2s(2) 2p(6)... bit is to go into a table, and it would look clearer that way I suppose, it might be worth while mentioning that in chemistry we actually just write it out in a line as shown.
A table would make the info a lot easier to grasp, but then an explanation of the nomenclature should be made, as thats what someone will find if they look at a text book.


Could also mention (although if you do you risk getting a bit more in depth than is required/wanted, so this is just a suggestion) the abbreviation of long electron configurations to the last noble gas plus the outer shells, eg:

....(slight pause as I find periodic table - should I have to after so long doing chemistry, no, but will I anyway thus illustrating the pure brilliance of them, yes.)....

Vanadium = [Ar] 3d3 4s2.

vp

It's another great entry, Hell!
I've only read it for the first time just now, and one thing struck me: the title is plural (Shells and orbitals) but the first header is singular (What is it?) I think 'What are they?' would be better.
Azara

Azara: You're right. Title is better changed.

vp: Table --> SubEds; Notation and Fe: [Ar]4s2 3d6 . Great idea.

Thank you.

HELL

That's much better Hell.
Lookin' good.

vp

Hell,
a good entry, even a physisist can follow the terms of chemist.
I still found a typo, in the very last sentence you use the word 'lookning', it probably can do without the first 'n'.

I still have a suggestion for the beginning. Maybe you could mention that the scientists faced a real problem. According to their classical theories matter could not exist as a positively charged nucleus with a negatively charged electron circling it, as charged particles running in circles should emit electromagnetic radiation. They should loose all their energy this way, and spiral into the nucleus. Booooom, exit atom and exit physisists.

Nit to pick: Last footnote -- 'lookning,' as I recall, but should be 'looking.'

This article is 'lookning' better and better. But, aren't these last changes stuff for the sub-ed to deal with?

Please! Please! Please! Scout! Over here, scout! Yes, you! Pick this thing already!


Barton