From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Tue Dec 22 14:21:00 2020 From: "steve heller steve[-]hellers.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: InChI Software version 1.06 available Message-Id: <-54243-201222141855-18803-2LiMi1fhhE2HPs4XHSHdww..server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "steve heller" Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:18:53 -0500 Sent to CCL by: "steve heller" [steve=hellers.com] InChI v1.06 is now available: https://www.inchi-trust.org/downloads/ This new version includes pseudo-atoms, which have a variety of uses including an improved description of polymers. The are also a variety of bug-fixes and technical changes which will be very useful for programmers but which will probably not be noticed by everyone who uses the code just to generate standard InChI. Thank you to Igor Pletnev for this new release Best wishes Steve Heller From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Tue Dec 22 22:57:00 2020 From: "Thomas Manz thomasamanz++gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: why is there no 2d subshell in atoms Message-Id: <-54244-201222225356-14472-Tky9fw16z4WX+fs740W+yQ[#]server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Thomas Manz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000815dd005b719a31c" Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:53:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Thomas Manz [thomasamanz=-=gmail.com] --000000000000815dd005b719a31c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear colleagues, I am looking for a reference to cite that provides mathematical details as to why a 2d subshell does not exist for an atom. I understand the traditional pat answer that n >= L+1 where L is angular quantum number ( L = 0 for s, 1 for p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum number. I would like to understand the mathematical and physical reason for this, preferably with some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a good reference for this? Although the above question seems "simple", I believe there more to it than first meets the eye. Specifically, such a rule does not apply to the nucleons inside an atomic nucleus. In nuclear models (e.g., nuclear shell model), for example, they encounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why does such an orbital exist for nucleons but not for electrons, when both are spin 1/2 fermions? The physical interaction (coupling regime) must have something to do with whether or not the 1f orbital exists for a particular fermion. In the case of nucleons, there is a very strong pairing so that two nucleons practically pair to make an effective boson; however, it is my understanding that for nucleons with odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon can still exist in orbitals such as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is substantial for nucleons, but also substantial for electrons in heavy elements. I would appreciate any mathematical or physical insights as well references to understand what is going on here. Sincerest thanks, Tom Manz --000000000000815dd005b719a31c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear colleagues,

I am looking for a ref= erence to cite that=C2=A0provides mathematical details as to why a 2d subsh= ell does not exist for an atom. I understand the traditional=C2=A0pat answe= r that n >=3D L+1 where L is angular quantum number ( L =3D 0 for s, 1 f= or p, 2 for d, etc.) and n is the principal quantum number. I would like to= understand the mathematical and physical reason for this, preferably with = some kind of mathematical derivation. Does anyone know a good reference for= this?

Although the above question seems "sim= ple", I believe=C2=A0there more to it than first meets the eye. Specif= ically, such a rule does not apply to the nucleons inside an atomic nucleus= . In nuclear=C2=A0models (e.g., nuclear shell model), for example, they enc= ounter things such as the 1f orbitals. Why does such an orbital exist for n= ucleons but not for electrons, when both are spin 1/2 fermions? The physica= l interaction (coupling regime) must have something to do with whether or n= ot the 1f orbital exists for a particular fermion. In the case of nucleons,= there is a very strong pairing so that two nucleons practically pair to ma= ke an effective boson; however, it is my understanding that for nucleons wi= th odd-numbered nucleons, the odd nucleon can still exist in orbitals such = as 1f. The spin-orbit coupling is substantial for nucleons, but also substa= ntial for electrons in heavy elements.

I would app= reciate any mathematical or physical insights as well references to underst= and what is going on here.

Sincerest thanks,
=

Tom Manz
--000000000000815dd005b719a31c--