The Student Room Group

radial nodes

what is a radial node? why does a 3p orbital have it and 2p does not?
Original post by jacksonmeg
what is a radial node? why does a 3p orbital have it and 2p does not?


Node (zero probability) as a radius across all angles. Why the orbitals have nodes when some don't..... quantum mechanics - they follow an easy to remember pattern though!
"Why" is a meaningless question, in all probability.
Original post by Infraspecies
"Why" is a meaningless question, in all probability.


No not really.... Just requires a relatively high level of knowledge in quantum mechanics!
Original post by JMaydom
No not really.... Just requires a relatively high level of knowledge in quantum mechanics!


You misunderstand.

The question of "why radial nodes exist" is meaningless, much as questioning the postulates of quantum mechanics, or the fact of the conservation of energy, is meaningless.
Original post by Infraspecies
You misunderstand.

The question of "why radial nodes exist" is meaningless, much as questioning the postulates of quantum mechanics, or the fact of the conservation of energy, is meaningless.


The nodes fall out of the equations... Yes you assume postulates but radial nodes aren't a postulate of QM
Original post by JMaydom
The nodes fall out of the equations... Yes you assume postulates but radial nodes aren't a postulate of QM


I know that.

That doesn't mean they have a "why". They simply are a statement of the fact of their existence.

Much like Feynman says of partial reflection- "Nobody knows why nature nature acts like this, she simply does. Probably the question has no meaning".
Original post by Infraspecies
I know that.

That doesn't mean they have a "why". They simply are a statement of the fact of their existence.

Much like Feynman says of partial reflection- "Nobody knows why nature nature acts like this, she simply does. Probably the question has no meaning".


Well is this not the case with anything we ask the question why to then? Just because this lies close to fundamental postulates doesn't mean we can't ask why it comes about.
Original post by JMaydom
Well is this not the case with anything we ask the question why to then? Just because this lies close to fundamental postulates doesn't mean we can't ask why it comes about.


Yes, that is the case.

I don't consider your answer to explain "why it comes about".
It really, I think, depends on how one decides to interpret the question.
They do not exist because of quantum mechanics. They just exist, and quantum mechanics describes the fact if their existence. They are a feature of reality described by quantum theory.

I don't understand why it's such a big deal to you, nor why you seek to "take me to task", or whatever it was that started you off on this conversation.
Original post by Infraspecies
Yes, that is the case.

I don't consider your answer to explain "why it comes about".
It really, I think, depends on how one decides to interpret the question.
They do not exist because of quantum mechanics. They just exist, and quantum mechanics describes the fact if their existence. They are a feature of reality described by quantum theory.

I don't understand why it's such a big deal to you, nor why you seek to "take me to task", or whatever it was that started you off on this conversation.


This seems to be a result of us viewing the problem/subject through different means.

I am viewing these phenomena as the result of the postulates - as derived through the maths of QM - I guess this is a product of the way I have had to deal with physics, as problems to be solved using laws.

You appear to be viewing it differently - these phenomena happen and are fundamentally detached from the maths. The maths describes but is not part of the reason/problem.

Sound reasonable?

Quick Reply

Latest