Talk:Relativistic quantum chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Relativity Taskforce.
 
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Color of Copper[edit]

Does it mean that also color of metallic copper originates from relativistic effects involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.170.66 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, without relativistic effects, the colour of the metals, Cu, Ag, Au would go from copper colour to silver colour down the column of the periodic table. The relativistic effects apply only to heavy elements and change only the colour of Gold here. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume readers know what you know[edit]

The article currently has a sentence that says:

s and p electrons travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light and the second being that there are indirect consequences of relativistic effects which are especially evident for d and f orbitals

Would someone who knows what "s and p electrons" and "d and f orbitals" are please link to wikipedia articles explaining them. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to help people learn so just because these are familiar to experts doesn't mean every reader will know. Thanks. 68.110.104.80 (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no easy way to link s and p electrons per se, but I have linked atomic orbitals where these concepts are explained. Usually we assume that anybody reading an article like this one should have read the Schrodinger equation and atomic orbital wikis first. Relativistic quantum chemistry is not much fun to read about if you don't know anything about relativity, quantum theory, or chemistry, first. ;) SBHarris 16:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I reworded "s and p electrons" as "electrons in s and p atomic orbitals", which is more accurate anyway, and allows a to link to atomic orbitals here too. I also revised the intro to the Atomic orbitals article to place a little more emphasis on the meaning of s orbitals etc.
However I agree with SBHarris's other point. This is really an advanced article aimed at readers who have studied at least general chemistry and already know the basics of atomic orbitals. We can try to make it a little more accessible to readers with no scientific background, but we may not have too much success. Dirac66 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusing statement[edit]

The article says:

"Heavy elements" in this context refers, typically, to elements in the lower region of the periodic table...

Should that read "elements in the higher region"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.107.217 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

They are higher (larger) in atomic number, but physically always lower on the actual periodic table, which has light elements above, heavy ones below. SBHarris 16:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, OK, thanks. Gosh, that is terribly confusing. We really ought to change that wording... 86.176.211.68 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Later versus earlier works for me- no confusion there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.246.177 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I changed 'physically lower' to 'later'; 'physically lower' is precise and correct but nevertheless too easy to be misunderstood, I think.Felix116 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I do NOT agree that "lower" is correct. There are MANY ways to imagine its layout, lower Atomic Numbers at Top Left is only one of them (but the most common). This is clear by looking up the article on alternative arrangements of the Periodic Table. "Lower in the Periodic Table" is factually WRONG at worst and sloppy at best; "Lower in the commonly displayed Periodic Table" corrects that.Abitslow (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
While the Actinides are indeed some of the heaviest elements of the periodic table, the Lanthanides are all between barium and hafnium and ARE NOT amongst the heaviest elements - common elements like tungsten, gold and lead are all heavier. It is more correct to say that the heavy elements are located at the bottom of the periodic table than to single out the lanthanides and actinides as being the heaviest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turricanfan (talkcontribs) 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Update[edit]

--MakecatTalk 03:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

AU / AG required or just elitist?[edit]

RE: Color of gold and caesium

Is it maybe just elitism to refer to gold and silver repeatedly as Au or Ag? What would be the negative effect to the article if it were Gold and Silver. Is this a resource for chemists or a resource for people? I think that where possible Wikipedia argues for accessibility. While I understand which is which it is unsure if a generic reader would do so and it is questionable if it is even required when not identifying specific atoms. Pizik (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason not to call them by their names - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Just don't capitalize silver and gold. There is no elitism in avoiding error. SBHarris 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Bohr Model[edit]

I can't believe anyone can seriously write about the "predictions" of the Bohr Atomic Model using relativistic corrections. Its been discredited for 50 years. I challenge the entire section invoking it. Its my understanding (I am not well versed in it) that the entire approach to atomic orbitals must change when relativity is included: it is NOT a simple perturbation. (eg. nodes disappear with the inclusion of time-dependence (which is what velocity is, last I heard)). The ONLY way the Bohr Model can be used is to severely limit where and how it is used. How is it meaningful to speak of the velocity of the electron in a bound quantum state??? This surely can not be mainstream! Abitslow (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree! I do not understand the meaning of "electron velocity" in a quantum context. This should be explained clearly! Dirac quotation, too, is inappropriate and misplaced. The quotation says "it is, indeed, usually sufficiently accurate if one neglects relativity variation of mass and velocity..." (bold is mine). It is indeed usually sufficiently accurate, in fact only a few exceptions are mentioned in the article. 78.15.165.142 (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)