Wave equations aren't much good for visualization. The "clouds" at
least show how "non circular" the probability shells are. Maybe a
diagram of the shells instead of an actual micrograph would be clearer.



Is this one better?

Metalwing, my comment was regarding diagrams, not diffraction micrographs.

For those that understand the interaction that gives rise to the micrograph, the micrograph can be very informative.

Yet many who don't know any better would naturally assume that the 'black' area of the micrograph is where there is 'zero probability' of electron presence - as opposed to 'very low' probability.

Also consider that some who don't know any better might think that the electron cloud was composed of some kind of mist, whose particles reflected light.

I'm not criticizing the use of micrographs, just trying to keep things in perspective. They can also be misleading.



I'm not so sure - throw them into a decent program (matlab? methamatica?), and vary some parameters (like a cut-off threshold for which probability level you are going to call an 'edge') and watch how the shapes change.






Oh, yes, that is important, and huge step in the right direction.



More clear definitely, but not necessarily more honest.

Doppelposter.

Yes. That is the proper way to visualize an electron.

matlab makes my head hurt

And this is coming from the person who said quicksand doesn't have to be sand and doesn't need to be quick?

She is very pretty. Atoms and Solar Systems look alot better to me now

For those who don't already know, mathematica is the preferred software for when you begin your project. At the end of your project, however, you may find yourself behind schedule and looking at pulling several all-nighters in a row to get it done.

At that time, the best software to use is methamatica. Its less reliable the visualizations algorithm is buggy, but users tend to be for more focused, for longer periods of time.

I see no way that this comment is truly related to the current conversation. Congrats for taking something out of context. I realize you are making a light-hearted comment, but I do not appreciate people putting false meanings to my words by mis-representing the context.

We were not discussing my opinions on what would make for the best use of language. At no time did I suggest that colloquial word usage would be desirable for those who seek precision, nor for those that seek a depth of understanding.

At some point in this thread, someone commented on how misleading shell diagrams are - this sets the stage for 'what does it take to have the most accurate understanding possible' - a completely different context than 'what is considered acceptable usage of words'.

I do suggest that, as language goes, many imprecise colloquial usages are valid; and that:

1) Language is consensual
2) People have tendencies to be irrational and lazy

(1) + (2) = irrational language

So no, the use of the word quicksand need not always meet the geologists definition of 'sand'... in fact sand doesn't have to meet the geologists definition of sand!! (When used casually by a non-geologist).

And blackboard are green while we park on driveways and drive on parkways.

Interesting hypothesis

Smiles, you start so many great topics!

matlab is better

its faster when working with three dimensional arrays

stuff like fast-fourier transforms

QM, I was just kidding, mocking myself for my typo: metha- vs mathe-

Yes, matlab is faster, and much better for large problems. In my opinion mathematica makes it much easier to play and explore a wider variety of ideas. Matlab is like a nail gun, and mathematica is like a box of crayons. I like crayons.

I don't know about you guys, but I have been staring at the Jupiter picture Mirror posted up in awe for a good 15 minutes.

It is truly amazing to look at this fascinating planet.