p
- 4h
California Association of Chemistry Teachers
Robert H. Maybury
University of Redlands
Redlands, California
The Language of Quantum Mechanics
No teacher of biology would talk to his
class about insects, animals, or growing plants outside
of the larger context of evolution. This great theory
of Darwin provides the very mood in which an in-
formed study of biology t,akes place today. As chem-
istry teachers, we have a corresponding obligation t,o
tell our story of nature, the story of atoms, molecules,
bonds, and electrons, in the mood appropriate to this
modern day. This mood has been set by the great
theories of quant,um mechanics developed in the 1920's.
Them is every bit as much grandeur and sweep to these
theories as t,hei-e is to the Darwinian picture of evolu-
t,ion.
Unfortunately, quantum mechanics has the ap-
pearance of a formidable mathematical language. This
has prevented many science teachers from becoming
familiar with it (in contrast to the theory of evolution,
an essentially narrative account). Scientists are prop-
erly cautious about popularizations of their subject,
particularly when they are asked to eliminate the
mathematically precise statements so necessary for
accuracy. Little has been done, therefore, to bring
down to ordinary speech the statements of this theory.
But in teaching science it is all important that the
right mood prevail so that the student might be en-
couraged to master the intricacies of the suhject. It is
the science teacher's task to create this mood, often by
popularizing or simplifying the quantitative theory.
A theory may have value not only as a tool, in which
form it provides the scientist with knowledge inac-
cessible to him through experiment, but also as a
language, in which form it provides a framework for
better understanding of the observations and concepts
of the suhject. I n the following presentation of
quantum mechanics, mathematical rigor and quantita-
tive accuracy have been sacrificed to provide the
teacher of chemistry with a view of quantum mechanics
which will serve him as a language for understanding
the wide variety of concepts common to the work of the
chemist t,oday--orhitals, resonance, hybrid bonds, and
the like.
The chemistry classroom abounds these days with
Styrofoam models of aboms, orbitals, and molecules.
Presented as a series of lectures before the Annual Junior Col-
lege Workshop in Chemistry, a program ior the improvement of
instnntion in mathematics and the sciences in the Junior Colleges
of California under the National Defense Education Act, Tit!e 111.
It is evident that the teacher of science strongly feels
the need to rely on concrete models to produce under-
standing. The scientist gathers together his ob-
servations of nature into a model as a means of ex-
plaining these observations. Most models are vis-
ualizations of the subject in terms of familiar, com-
mon sense objects. I n this sense a model is closely
related to an analogy, a comparison of an unfamiliar
experience with a familiar ohject of experience with the
hope of rendering the unfamiliar experience more
recognizable or friendly, hence more understandable.
So it was that Michael Faraday compared the field of a
magnet to elastic ribbons or lines of force.
The use of models and analogies in science must
always he accompanied with warnings not to take them
too far. After all, a comparison between an un-
familiar experience and something well known to us in
experience would be an identity rather than an analogy
if the two were identical, without the differences which
eventually show up when analogy is pressed too far.
The most important ideas to keep in mind in using
models are that they are analogical representations of
our experiences with the unknown structures of nature,
that they are tentative (and will need to be altered as
additional experience is gained), and that they are in
no manner to be considered as duplicate pictures of the
reality behind our observations. The reader may
ohject to our claim that a model assists our under-
standing of phenomena while at the same time we deny
that it is a literal picture of the reality which lies he-
hind the observed phenomena. Yet we must learn
this lesson: we have increased our understanding,
simply by putting our observations in a form with
which we are more a t home!
The Early Model of the Atom
A study of the atom yields a considerable array of
phenomena to the experimenter. There are the sharp
line series found through spectroscopy, the periodic
array of the chemical elements in the periodic table, the
extraordinary stability of the atom as an organized
group of electrons about a nucleus, the characteristic
ionization potentials of the various elements, and the
magnetism manifest in a variety of effects. Early in
the 20th century the atom, through study of these
diverse phenomena, had become an ohject of intense
curiosity to the scientist.
J. J. Thomson, producing convincing evidence for
the existence of the negatively charged electron as a
Volume 39, Number 7, July 1962 j 367
constituent of an atom, postulated in 1904 a "plum-
pudding" model of the atom consisting of a positive
sphere of charge in which the negative electrons were
embedded like raisins! But Rutherford's important
scattering experiments followed almost immediately to
indicate that, instead, the positive charge was intensely
concentrated on a minute and massive nucleus.
Clearly a more adequate model was called for. A big
step was needed in scienceas it so often is when the
number of separate pieces of data far outweigh the
picture or model at hand. The big step was made by
Rutherford's genius. It was the nuclear atom with
which we all are familiar.
Soon Niels Bohr picked up this planetary model of
the atom and refined it to include the quantum idea
regarding the ultimate granularity of nature which
Max Planck had enunciated. Nature at base, said
Planck, is not continuous or fluid-like, but grain-like:
energy, light, matter, are ultimately small grains of
indivisible content. The orbits of the Bohr atom
provided for this quantization in the picture of the atom
by limiting the electron only to certain definite and
allowable orbits.
For a few years matters progressed nicely; but then
difficulties began to appear. New experimental facts
were found through the guidance of the Bohr model
which placed a strain on the model. Sornmerfeld made
a valiant effort to modify the planetary atom model to
allow for some of these by resorting to elliptical rather
than circular orbits. But by 1920, what had seemed so
beautiful in 1912 was a wilted dream among scientists
throughout the world as the planetary atom model
headed into deep trouble. The model had been born in
imagination at one period of time but its inherent
tentativeness led to its death. The time was again at
hand for a new Right of the imagination to generate a
new model through which understanding could be
achieved.
De Broglie's Wave Mechanics
A young French prince, attracted by the relativity
theory Einstein had been publishing through this
period of time, devoted his doctoral study to the char-
acteristics of light. He was fascinated with the idea
that light waves exhibited interference and defraction
phenomena explainable only on wave theory, and yet
they also showed properties attributable only to
particles, the photo-electric effect, for instance. Ein-
stein had termed these particles photons, and had
associated with the wave length of the light a cor-
responding momentum. He expressed this:
hv
momentum = -
C
where :
h Planck's quantum of action (an essential constant
=
that appears in all equations in which the quantum
or granular aspect of nature is expressed)
v = the frequency of the light
and c = the speed of light
This young prince, Louis de Broglie, nearly missed
getting his degree by letting his imagination go too far
(in the judgment of his professors a t the University).
He made a wild suggestion that if photons with me-
chanical or particle-like properties were associated with
368 / Journal of Chemical Education
light waves, why in a corresponding manner should we
not associate waves, wavelengths, and all the other
paraphernalia that belong to waves, with material
particles such as electrons! Nothing regarding such
waves associated with material objects had ever been
observed and we must always credit de Broglie with an
amazing imagination to have suggested such a condi-
tion. Would we be any less critical than his pro-
fessors were in the face of such a daring and wild sug-
gestion? De Broglie persisted in his efforts to con-
vince his teachers and published his thesis finally with
their less than enthusiastic permission. His startlingly
novel idea was that with a material particle such as the
electron there is an associated wave. The wavelength
of this wave is associated with the momentum of the
particle through the following relationship, in complete
analogy to the photon-wave relationship for light waves:
momentum (mu.)= h"
- h
-
V
=
X
where:
m = mass of the electron
= velocity of the electron
= Planck's constant of action
v = frequency of the wave associated with the electron
c = the wave velocity
and X = the wavelength of the associated wave
The physics of waves says that for waves of any kind
the wavelength, frequency, and wave velocity are
related thus:
h" = v
This allows us to work either with X (wavelength) or
with v (frequency) in our equations. De Broglie knew
that the photon and light wave ideas were not really
clear to anyone who had tried t,o understand their as-
sociation in light theory. His assertion that waves
were to be associated with a material particle such as
the electron did not clear up this confusion hut instead
only introduced greater confusion into science. Con-
sequently, though he did not bring any ordering into
atomic science in the 1920's, his imagination provided
the all-important spark of suggestion that a model of
an atom need not be built on t,he particle analogy alone:
pay equal attention to the wave analogy!
Schrodinger Wave Model
This is precisely the kind of thinking that another
European physicist, Erwin Schrodinger, began as soon
as he came across de Broglie's strange idea. He pro-
posed a model of the atom entirely in terms of waves
rather than material particles as the Bohr planetary
model does. I n 1925, Schrodinger startled the sci-
entific world with the publication of his theory of wave
mechanics or quantum mechanics, in which the model
for the atom was taken to be a wave. And even today
our chemistry with its orbitals is a direct fruit of this
wave model, for the Schrodinger idea has held out for
30 or more years as a highly workable model of the
atom. I n the section that follows we shall develop in
some detail the framework of the Schrodinger quantum
mechanics.
Schrijdinger, convinced that a new model for
the atom was needed, seized upon the clue to be
found in de Broglie's suggestion of a wave associated
with an electron. A good physicist, Schrodinrer
 was of course familiar with the available experi-
mental information then pertaining to atoms. The
spectroscopists had published their work showing
that distinct lines characterized atomic spectra. B o b
and others had emphasized that any adequate model
of the atom must incorporate the quantum ideas of
Planck, i.e., the model must provide for a series of dis-
crete energy levels in the atom. Bohr had shown how
this requirement could be met by arbitrarily introducing
quantwn numbers, a series of integers, into his theory.
As Schrodinger reflected upon these facts, the insight
came to him that the standing waves associated with
vibrating objects, such as strings or drum heads and the
like, were mathematically expressible by equations in
which a set of integers necessady and naturally ap-
peared. That was the point he sensed to be crucial.
He needed only to find the right vihrating ohject as a
model and the standing waves for this object would
have equations which contain this set of integers;
these equations would then represent the electrons in an
atom. Amazingly enough, he found the answer to his
search for the right vibrating object in some mathe-
matical work by William Hamilton, the mathematical
genius of 100 years earlier. The vihrating ohject was a
flooded planet-a uniformly deep ocean over a spherical
planet. Hamilton, evidently working out some mathe-
matics connected with problems of the tides in which
the moon perturbs the earth's ocean in a periodic
manner, had idealized the problem by writing out the
complete mathematics of the vibrations, that is, the
fundamental wave and the higher overtones, for a
uniformly deep ocean over the surface of the earth.
Schrodinger recognized in an instant that the solutions
to the wave equation for this model were the equations
for these standing waves, and that these could rep-
resent the electrons in an atom.
Before taking a closer look a t this matter of waves,
wave equations, and solutions to wave equations, let us
note that the familiar orbitals that we use in our
chemistry teaching, the s, the p, and the d orbitals with
their characteristic shapes, are close to being three-
dimensional plots of the mathematical equations for
these standing waves in this vihrating, flooded-planet
model worked out by Hamilton and applied to the
atom by Schr~dinger.
To carry our story beyond this point, especially to
appreciate the way these integers arise in any mathe-
matical treatment of waves, some familiarity with the
most elementary aspects of wave motion is required.
Suppose, then, that a string is stretched tautly between
two posts. Waves can be set up in this string simply
by plucking it with the finger. Because the string is
not infinite in length hut instead is bounded on each end,
the vibration of the string when plucked leads to a set
of standing waves. The standing wave shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1 is termed the fundamental mode of vibration
of the string, and corresponds to a wave in which the
entire length of the string from one end to the other
undergoes a displacement from the rest position.
Other, higher modes of vibration can be induced in this
string; the first ouertone occurs (Fig. 2 ) when the string
vibrates in such a way that its center point remains
motionless and unmoved from its rest position. This
fixed point on the string between the two tied-down ends
is termed a node. Higher overtones occur in this string
when additional nodes are located in the string as
shown in Figure 2.
These wave forms shown in Figures 1 and 2 may he
described more succinctly by simple trigonometric
expressionsin which y, the height above the rest position
of any given point x along the string, is related to this
point x. Thus, y = a sin s(x/Z), in which y is the
amplitude, x is the position at a given point along the
string, 1 is the length of the bounded string, and a, a
constant, describes the fundamental mode of vibration.
Each of the overtones is expressed similarly:
v. = a sin n s ( s / l )
where n = 2 for the first overtone, n = 3 for the second
overtone, and so on. Clearly this elementary con-
sideration of a vibrating string has revealed one striking
and highly significant feature regarding wave motion,
namely, the perfectly natural association with the
trigonometric expressions for the modes of vibration of
a set of integers, the n = 1, 2, 3, 4 . . ., in the above
equations.
Schrodiuger, a competent physicist thoroughly
familiar with these mathematical aspects of vihrating
objects, knew that a similar set of integers would
emerge from a mathematical treatment of the vihrating
flooded-planet model. Again in more mathematical
terms, what he recognized was that imposing boundary
conditions upon the equation for wave motion of any
vibrating ohject generates a set of expressions for the
corresponding standing waves. For a string, the
equation for wave motion is:
First Overtone
%
x- Second Overtone
A
O x- Third Overtone
figure 2.
Volume 39, Number 7; July 1962 / 369
I n this equation, u is the velocity of the wave in the
string and indicates that this wave equation refers to a
vibration in a long, long string in which a wave pulse
travels along the string toward one end or the other.
An interesting and useful thing happens to this wave
equation when we tie the string down at both ends (as
in the case of the string that we considered above, tied
to two posts). Mathematically, we say that we are
imposing houndary conditions on the wave equation.
These conditions for the string tied on each end can be
written mathematically as:
at x = 0,y = 0; and at z = 2, y = 0,again
When these boundary conditions are taken into account,
the wave equation can be solved by a mathematical
treatment referred to as "turning a differential equation
crank." Out fall the solutions to the wave equation,
the set of standing waves existing in this particular
string tied down a t each end:
where n is an integer having values 1, 2, 3 . . .
I n going from the general form of the wave equation
to the solutions given above, several steps have been
omitted; these should be hinted a t here. F i s t of all,
in the general wave equation it is clear that y is really a
function of both x and t. The first step in solving that
equation is to get rid of the time dependency, so that an
equation for standing waves with y as a function of x
only remains. The mathematician who solves this
differential wave equation gets rid of the time by
separating the wave equation into two parts, one part
depending only on x, the other part depending only on
the time. I n eliminating the part that depends on t h e
finds it necessary to introduce a term that imparts to
the remaining portion of the equation, dependent only
on x, a periodic or wave motion form. This term he
writes into the equation either as a frequency or as a
wavelength. That this wave property of wavelength
actually is embodied in the expression y = A sin n a
(xll) can he demonstrated thus: in the fundamental
mode of vibration, the wave length, XI, is equal to twice
the length of the string; in the f i s t overtone, Xz is equal
to the length of the string; and so forth. For all the
harmonic vibrations in this string, the relationship
between I and X, can be stated in this way:
Our solutions may Ly written, then, in this form:
v. = A , sin 2r(xjX,).
When we consider the vibrations in objects more
complicated than the string-the drum-head or a solid
object, for instance-we find that acoustical theory in
each case provides a wave eqnation similar to that for
the string. Then in each case boundary conditions
suggested by the actual geometry of the vibrating
object can be imposed on the wave equation. These
cause the wave equation to yield solutions describing
standing waves made up of afundamental, overtone and
higher overtones. I n every case these equations are
rclated through a series of integers just as we found with
the simple string example.
I n setting up his wave equation for an atom, SchrG
dinger first had to write out the general eqnation for
370 / Journal of Chemicol Education
wave motion in three dimensions:
E"+-a=+ + -a = - - I a=*
ax"y2 asp u* at*
In this equation the Greek letter \I. is used to represent
the wave amplitude which in our string equation was
represented by y; u stands for the velocity of the
wave impulse through space; x, y, and z are the usual
Cartesian coordinates. Alternatively this equation
may be written in r, 8, and p, the spherical coordinates.
Refering to one of the books cited in the bibliography
will reveal the form this equation takes in t,hese co-
ordinates.
A procedure similar to that used in obtaining the
expressions for standing waves in the string is now
followed. First, the time is eliminated from the wave
equation to yield an equation in which \I. is a function
only of the space coordinates x, y, and z or r, 8, and p.
This is accomplished by dividing the equation into two
parts, one containing time and one only the space co-
ordinates, and introducing into the part which depends
on space coordinates a term that indicates the periodic
. or wave-like aspect of this part. The result of these
operations is an eqnation of this form:
or its equivalent in r, 8, and p.
Finally, the boundary conditions appropriate to the
flooded-planet model are imposed upon this equation
for wave motion to generate a set of expressions for the
standing waves.
The genius of Schrodinger is most readily appreciated
a t just this point, for he was the first to recognize the
fruitfulness of placing de Broglie's electronic wave
length, X =h/mv, into this equation for wave motion in
three dimensions. Thus, placing h/mv into the equa-
tion above where X appears completes the analogy
between an ordinary wave of experience and the elec-
tron considered as a wave. After this suhstitution,
the wave eqnation now appears as:
A few changes using algebra alter this equation into the
form of the well-known Schrodinger wave equation.
First of all, classical mechanics states that:
E = kinetic energy + potential energy
E = muZ V+
E = (mu)*
-+V
2m
or rearranging:
Substituting this relationship for momentum into our
wave equation, the wave equation now takes on the
form:
or rearranged:
which is the well-known Schrodinger wave equation.
When this eqnation describes electrons in an atom, V
represents the electrostatic potential energy of the
electrons in the field of the nucleus. Understandably,
this field depends upon the nuclear charge.
The part of the equation:
is commonly abbreviated Vz$. V may just as weU be
expressed in terms of the spherical coordinates r, 8, and
+ rather than the Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z.
The wave equation now may be written more tersely:
The symbol H is given to
allowing the equation to appear as:
Here is a revolutionary new wave equation. Its
solutions will correspond to a fundamental and the
higher harmonics of a wave for a vibrating substance.
This vibrating substance is the model for the electron
of wave length A. Schrodinger reached this final stage
by recognizing that the boundary condition to be
imposed on this wave equation had, of course, to cor-
respond to something l i e the geometry of an atom.
This he set as follows: the amplitude $ should become
zero at a distance of infinity away from the center of
the atom. Imposing this novel boundary condition on
this wave equation and "turning the crank" of the dif-
ferential equation, he obtained solutions which were
the mathematical equations of a series of the standing
waves of this peculiar object he had chosen as a model
for the atom. These parts of these solutions which
depend only on the angles 8 and 6 match exactly solu-
tions for the flooded planet wave equation. The
orbitals we use so commonly are, very closely, three
dimensional plots of these solutions.
The Probability Interpretation of $
Now that a set of waves has been found which re-
presents the electrons in an atom, we face (as Schrodinger
faced) the puzzling question of the physical meaning of
these waves. Schrodinger thought these waves
actually were the electrons and as a result he pictured an
electron spread out over space in the shape of these
waves. But other physicists showed that this was a
highly untenable position. Many ideas were put forth
concerning the interpretation of this amplitude of the
wave, J.,until finally Max Born proposed an answer of a
most revolutionary nature. He startled the scientific
world with his assertion that this wave with an ampli-
tude of J. was not the electron at all, but was a wave of
probability or something very close to this. Actually,
he asserted that the square of J. (fi2) described the
probability that the electron would he found a t each
particular point in space. I n giving the wave this
probability interpretation he left, of course, as an un-
answered question the problem of the nature of the
electron itself.
This probability interpretation of J. is such a re-
volutionary idea that some special attention to the
proper interpretation of this amplitude function,
$2, needs to he given. Let us ask the question: Where
is the electron in an atom, say the hydrogen atom, an
atom with a nucleus with one positive charge and a
single electron? Where is the electron on the basis of
this quantum mechanical interpretation Born has
given to J.2? When the Schrodinger equation is solved
for the hydrogen atom, the solutions are equations of
the form:
* = Ae-),
where A and k are constants and r is the distance from
the nucleus. A graph of J.2, which is said to he pro-
portional to the probability of finding the electron at
a given point T from the nucleus plotted vs r has the
form shown in Figure 3.
0 I -
Figure 3.
How shall we interpret this graph in our attempt to
reach an answer to the question, "where is the elec-
tron?" The best way is for us to play a End of game.
Pretend that the nucleus of the hydrogen atom were a
golf ball placed on a chair. We, as some sort of atomic-
sized observers with pencil, paper, and a stop watch in
hand, stand at a distance one foot away from the golf
hall. We are now to look for the electron as it passes
our observation point in its flight in the vicinity of the
nucleus. The electron may be imagined to be a bee
flying in this space. Occasionally the bee will fly in
front of our nose while we stand a t this observation
point one foot away from the golf ball on the chair and
when it does, we place a stroke on our notepad with our
pencil. Keeping a record of the number of times we see
it a t this spot in a five-minute interval, we then take up
a new observation position out 2 ft from the golf ball
where we repeat this experiment of tabulating ap-
pearances of the electron "bee" for another five-minute
interval. Then we move out 3 ft from the golf ball,
make counts for five minutes, and so on until we have
moved out 10 or 20 ft from the golf ball. Now we plot
the results of these scores at each station to see what the
record may show us. Of course, our distances would be
Angstrom units, not feet, if we were to conduct this
imaginary game in the realm of .the real atom. As we
can see (Fig. 4), the summary of our experiences of
Figure 4
Volume 39, Number 7, July 1962 / 371
"seeing" the electron "bee" resembles the plot of the
$2 function above. For the purposes of a rough analogy
this is a perfectly good way to interpret what we mean
about the answer to the question, "where is the elec-
tron?" The wave equation gives a solution, $, which,
when squared and plotted against distance from the
nucleus, yields a probability plot. This plot tells us a t
any given point r the number of times per unit time
that we would experience the electron if we should look
for it at that point. We must hasten to clean up this
analogy a little bit in one respect, and that is to destroy
the notion that the electron can be thought of as literally
running around inside the atom making appearances a t
different points. I n reality it is absolutely impossible
to pin the electron down as a particle with a continuous,
unbroken path, running around like a bee, making
appearances here and there. The very act of at-
tempting to "see" the electron leads to the electron
showing itself as a point a t a given position. It is also
incorrect to think of the electron as being like a bee
flying around having intrinsic but unrevealed position
in between these acts of ours to measure its position.
Our only knowledge of this electron is that given by
this $2 plot which is a statistical knowledge-a brand
new way of knowing an object, indeed! The $2 plot is
a summary of a large number of our experiences of the
position of the electron. It is meaningless to ask just
what the electron is other than this view. This is the
most honest presentation possible of the new spirit in
which we must talk about electrons in atomic systems
and shows the radical sense in which wave mechanics
alters our view of fundamental matter.
The Orbital Model
Now we are prepared to discuss the orbitals in some-
what the same manner. The s orbital, as has always
been noticed, is represented as a sphere. This spherical
orbital, a mathematical surface of spherical symmetry,
is actually a plot of J'2 (in terms only of its angular
dependency). The significance of this surface is that
within it the electron would be found, if it were being
looked for, about 90% of the time. Were we to go
looking for the electron by making position measure
ments, there is a nine-out-of-ten chance that the electron
would register a position signal with us inside of the
surface of this sphere. We can consider the p orbitals
in a similar manner. There are three of these, which
are mathematical surfaces inside of which 90% of the
time we are likely to find an electron if we go looking
for it. The same thing can be said for the five d or-
bitals. Time must be spent studying this interpreta-
tion until its full significance is grasped. I n review,
these surfaces are mathematical surfaces representing
the fiZfunction (at least the part of that depends on
angle). They give the region inside of which the elec-
tron makes an appearance 90% of the time in experi-
ments performed to show up electron position.
We must remember that Schrodinger had recognized
the natural occurrence of a set of integers every time a
wave equation is solved with boundary conditions
applying. This was one of the most rewarding out-
comes of solving the Schrodinger equation for the atom,
because the quantnm numbers n, I, and m (the principal
quantum number, the quantum number for angular
momentum, and the magnetic quantum number) all
372 / journal o f Chemical Education
appear automatically aspart of the solutions for the wave
equation. The existence of energy levels in this wave
picture of the atom is of interest. Just as a vibrating
string possesses an energy that is characteristic for each
harmonic mode of its vibration, so the energy of the
electron in an atom (or the energy level of the atom) is
related to the orbital mode of the electron in that atom.
Quantum mechanics says all this very succinctly.
The Schrodinger wave equation, written as:
H* = E*
yields a value for E, the energy of the atom, which is a
function of the quantum number n primarily.
The magnitude of E is calculated by the above
equation. $ represents a given state of the electron
and, of course, a particular solution to the wave equa-
tion. There is a definite value of E that depends upon
the J' in question. If $ is the 1s $, for instance, mean-
ing that the electron is in the 1s orbital, then E has a
value characteristic of the 1s state. If J' is the 2s
orbital, that is, the electron is in the 2s state, E will
have a correspondingly different value. For the
hydrogen atom these values of E can be calculated this
way for each fi corresponding to the various harmonics,
and these energy levels can be plotted on a graph.'
Summary
This treatment of the atom has admittedly been a
very qualitative handling of the Schrodinger wave
mechanics and a more precise account of this story
should be read in a standard text. But the important
point established here is that these orbitals and the
corresponding ideas they lead to in chemistry-bond-
ing, hybrid orbitals, etc.-are consequences of a rad-
ically different model of the atom, a wave model,
initiated by de Broglie and completed by Schrodinger
in his wave mechanics. We must establish this change
in essential viewpoint with our students to set the
proper mood for their study. They will fill in with the
more accurate details in their advanced study of
quantum mechanics.
Today the knowledge of the snb-atomic world of
electrons in atoms has become considerably more
complicated and mysterious as a result of the in-
vestigations of the early part of this century. It is
clear that the electron exhibits behavior a t one time
like that of a particle, for instance, in the photoelectric
experiment, whereas at other times its behavior is that
of a wave, for instance, in diffraction experiments with
crystals. This peculiar behavior of the electron has
been tidily summarized in the complementarity theory
of Niels Bohr in which he says that our knowledge of the
electron is a lot like that of the proverbial blind man
observing the elephant. Our knowledge depends upon
the particular kind of observation we make. When
we set up experiments to observe the electron as a wave,
the electron obliges us by behaving as a wave. When
we set up experiments to observe the particle character
of the electron, the electron obliges us by behaving as
a particle. What the electron really is, whether
' For example, see Figure 2-19 in PAULINQ,LINUS,"Nature
of the Chemical Bond," 3rd ed., Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
N. Y., 1960, p. 56. See also Figure 4 on page 290 of the June.
1962, issue of mrs JOURNAL.
particle or wave or some combination of particle and
wave, is not a question we can answer. The electron
has the capacity for exhibiting both these behaviors and
probably has the capacity to exhibit other behaviors
which we may not yet have set about to observe.
Our position is at least more tenable if we keep clear
in our minds the role of our models in science. To urge
that the electron must he a particle or a wave is to
mistake the model for reality. We remarked a t the
outset that our models are, a t best, analogies which
attempt simply to erect a comparison between some-
thing familiar and something strange to us. Waves
and particles are familiar everyday objects to us. The
electron is still a mystery. Thus, we try to make it
friendlier to us by a t one time comparing it to a wave,
a t another time comparing it to a particle. Let us
remember that we come to terms with our experience
of nature's mysteries by turning to models, but these
models are not the ultimate realities behind the mys-
teries. Fortunately, models are useful to us. I n
science we must learn to be content with usefulness as
the best we can have with our finite understanding in
a world of infinite mystery.
Bibliography
D'Asao, A,, "The Rise of the New Phyaies," 2 Vol., Dover
Publications, New York, 1951.
BRAITHWAITE, R. B., "Scientific Explanation," Harper Torch-
book 515, New York, 1953.
COULSON, C. A,, "Valence," Oxford, London, 1952.
HOFBT~AN, BANESH,"The Strange Story of The Quantum,"
Harper & Brothers, New York, 1947.
HEISENBEER, ~ s Philosophy," Harper & Brothera,
W., " P h r ~ i and
New York, 1958.
LINNETT, J. W., "Wave Mechanics and Valency," John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, 1960.
SHERWIN, C. W., "Introduction to Quantum Mechmics," Henry
Holt & Co., New York, 1959.
Volume 39, Number 7, July 1962 / 373