I guess I know they have different 1 or the other, but I don't know how exactly.

Ok, well you know how the energy level is like the amplitude right? Well what's a period? The orbital shape? Whats the phase? The spin?

Ok, well you know how the energy level is like the amplitude right?

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. What is the "energy level" (the energy?) and what is the "amplitude" (something related to a wave function of an object?)?

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. What is the "energy level" (the energy?) and what is the "amplitude" (something related to a wave function of an object?)?

 

Aren't atomic and sub-atomic particles described using wave mechanics?

The amplitude is more closely related to number, if anything.

 

The energy is directly proportional to the wave number/frequency, or inversely proportional to the wavelength/period.

 

In systems where the particles do not interact (think photons in an EM field) the amplitude is related to the total energy. At any given frequency it determines the number of particles (each with an amount of energy that depends on the frequency).

 

For interacting systems -- and when you include particles with rest mass -- things get somewhat more complex, but the general theme of energy inversely proportional to wavelength remains.

Edited November 23, 201114 yr by Schrödinger's hat

Aren't atomic and sub-atomic particles described using wave mechanics?

Kind of. Sometimes. But your statement doesn't seem to make too much sense in wave mechanics, either: What is an "energy level" in wave mechanics, and why is it like "the amplitude"? And what is "the amplitude" (say, of the wave [math]f(x,t) = e^{-(x - at)^2} - e^{-(x - bt +3)^2}[/math]), anyways?

 

EDIT: Sorry for being a bit rude (I actually skipped the really rude part before submitting this reply). But I think that if you ask a question about something that interests you and use what seems to be inappropriate terms, then if someone asks you to specify those terms a wish-wash non-answer like "aren't particles being described using wave mechanics?" is not appropriate. We could of course boil the whole issue down to "you know nothing about classical mechanics, so don't even bother asking questions about QM", which is a formally correct answer. But that is probably not what you are interested in. You should consider issues with using inappropriate terminology and concepts (that you don't even seem to know what they mean) as serious indicators that something is fundamentally missing, rather than twist, bend, and glue analogies and non-understood concepts to a rubber-band ball of hollow phrases.

Edited November 23, 201114 yr by timo

Ok, well you know how the energy level is like the amplitude right? Well what's a period? The orbital shape? Whats the phase? The spin?

 

The shape of an electron orbital in a hydrogenic atom comes from the angular momentum. Higher angular momentum quantum numbers make for more complicated orbital shapes with more nodes.

 

You can derive this but perhaps you are not ready for that yet.

 

Wikipedia atomic orbitals for a decent general introduction.

Edited November 23, 201114 yr by mississippichem