U UCSD1984 Full Member 10+ Year Member Joined May 9, 2011 Messages 422 Reaction score 7 Sep 3, 2011 #1 If "l" is 0 (i.e., if we're looking at the s-shell), what is the range for ml? Can it only be 0 as well? Members don't see this ad.
If "l" is 0 (i.e., if we're looking at the s-shell), what is the range for ml? Can it only be 0 as well? Members don't see this ad.
N needzmoar Full Member 10+ Year Member Joined Jul 7, 2011 Messages 250 Reaction score 0 Sep 3, 2011 #2 UCSD1984 said: If "l" is 0 (i.e., if we're looking at the s-shell), what is the range for ml? Can it only be 0 as well? Click to expand... ml= -l....0....+l You can only have one quantum number for ml if l=0 which is in agreement with what we know about the s-subshell (only one orbital) Upvote 0 Downvote
UCSD1984 said: If "l" is 0 (i.e., if we're looking at the s-shell), what is the range for ml? Can it only be 0 as well? Click to expand... ml= -l....0....+l You can only have one quantum number for ml if l=0 which is in agreement with what we know about the s-subshell (only one orbital)
J jwnichols21 Full Member 10+ Year Member Joined Aug 11, 2010 Messages 272 Reaction score 2 Sep 3, 2011 #3 needzmoar said: ml= -l....0....+l You can only have one quantum number for ml if l=0 which is in agreement with what we know about the s-subshell (only one orbital) Click to expand... Yes so the only value for ml is 0. Why did you include -1 and 1? I believe that is inaccurate and would apply to an l value of 1. Upvote 0 Downvote
needzmoar said: ml= -l....0....+l You can only have one quantum number for ml if l=0 which is in agreement with what we know about the s-subshell (only one orbital) Click to expand... Yes so the only value for ml is 0. Why did you include -1 and 1? I believe that is inaccurate and would apply to an l value of 1.
U UCSD1984 Full Member 10+ Year Member Joined May 9, 2011 Messages 422 Reaction score 7 Sep 3, 2011 #4 needzmoar said: ml= -l....0....+l You can only have one quantum number for ml if l=0 which is in agreement with what we know about the s-subshell (only one orbital) Click to expand... Right, so it if l=0 then ml must equal 0? I'm basically asking if ml has to be 0 or 1 if l=0. I already know the ranges for all the other l values. Upvote 0 Downvote
needzmoar said: ml= -l....0....+l You can only have one quantum number for ml if l=0 which is in agreement with what we know about the s-subshell (only one orbital) Click to expand... Right, so it if l=0 then ml must equal 0? I'm basically asking if ml has to be 0 or 1 if l=0. I already know the ranges for all the other l values.
N needzmoar Full Member 10+ Year Member Joined Jul 7, 2011 Messages 250 Reaction score 0 Sep 3, 2011 #5 jwnichols21 said: Yes so the only value for ml is 0. Why did you include -1 and 1? I believe that is inaccurate and would apply to an l value of 1. Click to expand... that's an L not the number 1 Upvote 0 Downvote
jwnichols21 said: Yes so the only value for ml is 0. Why did you include -1 and 1? I believe that is inaccurate and would apply to an l value of 1. Click to expand... that's an L not the number 1
N needzmoar Full Member 10+ Year Member Joined Jul 7, 2011 Messages 250 Reaction score 0 Sep 3, 2011 #6 UCSD1984 said: Right, so it if l=0 then ml must equal 0? I'm basically asking if ml has to be 0 or 1 if l=0. I already know the ranges for all the other l values. Click to expand... ml must be 0 if l=0 Upvote 0 Downvote
UCSD1984 said: Right, so it if l=0 then ml must equal 0? I'm basically asking if ml has to be 0 or 1 if l=0. I already know the ranges for all the other l values. Click to expand... ml must be 0 if l=0
U UCSD1984 Full Member 10+ Year Member Joined May 9, 2011 Messages 422 Reaction score 7 Sep 3, 2011 #7 jwnichols21 said: Yes so the only value for ml is 0. Why did you include -1 and 1? I believe that is inaccurate and would apply to an l value of 1. Click to expand... Perfect thanks. And I think he brought up [-l, +l] range to signify what ml could be if we were not looking at the s-subshell, but rather p, d, or f. For some reason I thought if l=0, then ml would equal 1. Just had to double-check. Thanks guys. Upvote 0 Downvote
jwnichols21 said: Yes so the only value for ml is 0. Why did you include -1 and 1? I believe that is inaccurate and would apply to an l value of 1. Click to expand... Perfect thanks. And I think he brought up [-l, +l] range to signify what ml could be if we were not looking at the s-subshell, but rather p, d, or f. For some reason I thought if l=0, then ml would equal 1. Just had to double-check. Thanks guys.
J jwnichols21 Full Member 10+ Year Member Joined Aug 11, 2010 Messages 272 Reaction score 2 Sep 3, 2011 #8 UCSD1984 said: Perfect thanks. And I think he brought up [-l, +l] range to signify what ml could be if we were not looking at the s-subshell, but rather p, d, or f. For some reason I thought if l=0, then ml would equal 1. Just had to double-check. Thanks guys. Click to expand... Sorry..they look alike :/ Upvote 0 Downvote
UCSD1984 said: Perfect thanks. And I think he brought up [-l, +l] range to signify what ml could be if we were not looking at the s-subshell, but rather p, d, or f. For some reason I thought if l=0, then ml would equal 1. Just had to double-check. Thanks guys. Click to expand... Sorry..they look alike :/
N needzmoar Full Member 10+ Year Member Joined Jul 7, 2011 Messages 250 Reaction score 0 Sep 3, 2011 #9 jwnichols21 said: Sorry..they look alike :/ Click to expand... I was thinking the same thing as I was typing the response. I probably should of italicized it. ml= -l...0...+l Upvote 0 Downvote
jwnichols21 said: Sorry..they look alike :/ Click to expand... I was thinking the same thing as I was typing the response. I probably should of italicized it. ml= -l...0...+l
