Talk:Azimuthal quantum number/Archive 1

Contradiction with Electron shell
Please go to Talk:Electron shell

the azimuthal quantum number maybe could be merged with the orbital angular momentum quantum number as they are the same thing! agreed67.70.129.22 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory sentences in history section.
In the history section, is the following:

"Bohr argued that the angular momentum in any orbit n was nKh, where h is Planck's constant and K is some multiplying factor, the same for all the orbits, which was later determined to be 1/2π. The lowest quantum level therefore had an angular momentum of zero."

Since the lowest value for n is 1, we get L = h/2π, not zero.

The last sentence makes no sense, since according to the first sentence the angular momentum was not zero.

This should be sorted out, as the two sentences totally contradict each other.


 * This history section is very poor. There is the contradiction mentioned above, and most of the paragraph is concerned with things somewhat unrelated to the orbital quantum number. It desperately needs fixing, and for now I'll remove some of the worst chunks. --Latch.r 05:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proof needed
Can anybody put the proof of $$\mathbf{L^2\boldsymbol{\psi}} = \hbar^2{l(l+1)}\boldsymbol{\psi}$$ into the article? --83.131.82.102 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Derivation
Interesting. A derivation section in which nothing is derived. I agree w/ the above comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.156.170 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"The letters after the f sub-shell just follow f in alphabetical order except those already used. One mnemonic to remember the sequence S. P. D. F. G. H. ... is "Sober Physicists Don't Find Giraffes Hiding In Kitchens Like My Nephew" "

Surely this is wrong? J comes after I, not K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.197.85 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * j is not used. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Does max electrons correlate with Hückel's rule?
The 4n+2 and 4l+2 look similar, so if they are related to each other, both pages might benefit from having the link explained. I don't have the technical expertise to confirm this though, so someone more knowledgeable would have to confirm/deny this, then explain it on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bush6984 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)