Talk:Electron density

Hello,

I have no objections to the contents of the "Electron density" article, but I think it would be more meaningful to start with a macroscopic definition, i.e. number of electrons per unit volume. This could then be related to the probabilistic definition of density, and the current contents could be introduced by a discussion of when the macroscopic view breaks down.

The reason I'm suggesting this is that there is currently a link from the article on incoherent scattering, where it is mentioned that this technique is used to measure electron density (in this case, the number density of free electrons in near-Earth space is intended) while the linked article talks only about orbitals in molecules. User:Togr 11:22, 13 October 2005

Merging electron density with electronic density

Hi all. I propose to merge those two articles as their subject is strictly the same. Faithfully yours Grimlock (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am not really sure about the wisdom of doing this, but if it is going to be done, which way do you want to do it? I suggest electronic density to electron density. If you agree the merge tags should be changed to mergeto and mergefrom tags. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but there are at least some links to these pages, e.g. on Saha ionization equation and Ionized air glow, that use "electron density" in a different (classical statistics) sense. Such links should be looked for and removed. Art Carlson (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. For the links pointed by Art Carlson, I underlined that this classical view is used in plasma physics, and perhaps this should be distinguished in another page. Dealing with this in electron density (as it is understood in quantum physics and chemistry) is misleading, in my mind. Grimlock (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nucleophilicity versus electophilicity

I never tried to edit a Wiki page before, just now having created an account. How does one simply question an entry, rather than proceeding to edit? But my question refers to the following paragraph: Graphically, the electron density surface also serves as a canvas upon which other electronic properties can be displayed. The electrostatic potential map (the property of electrostatic potential mapped upon the electron density) provides an indicator for charge distribution in a molecule. The local ionization potential map (the property of local ionization potential mapped upon the electron density) provides an indicator of electrophilicity. And the LUMO map (lowest unoccupied molecular orbital mapped upon the electron density) can provide an indicatory for nucleophilicity.[5] My question is...have not the terms "electrophilicity' and "nucleophilicity" been switched? Local ionization potential would refer to the loss of electrons, that is, it would correlate to a propensity to be attacked by electrophiles (i.e. nucleophilicity) and the LUMO map would show where a molecule would be attacked by nucleophiles (i.e. electrophilicity). Fichtnermw (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Relative electron density

I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I thought to ask before proceeding. I was planning to add a table of relative electron densities of most common materials in NTP conditions. I work in radiotherapy and some times need to check these but find it very hard to find a good list so I end up calculating them every time from the periodic table and other sources. So I believe such a table would be appreciated in radiotherapy community. My question is: should I make a section to this article or create a separate article? The section/article would introduce what is the relative electron density to water, how it is calculated, and then a table of most common materials/elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapmyl (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I understand this has been proposed before (see above) but not resolved. Could we resolve at least the articles in a way? If we do want to have a separate article we should state "Electron density (classical statistics)" or something. Pinging @Bduke: and @Dirac66: for comment.--Officer781 (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the two articles are better off merged. Having for example a distinct article for Charge carrier density is good since there are some conceptual differences between charge carriers and electrons, but I can't think of a good reason to have two articles in this case. The usual approach in physics of separating a simple classical model from a more complete quantum mechanics treatment doesn't seem to work here: the most basic explanations of electron behavior like lewis structures are based in quantum mechanics. So I think it's best to give a single, unified treatment. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 18:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've gone ahead and merged. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 03:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)