On Orbits and Orbitals

The word orbit was in the April 20, 2010 NYT Crossword Puzzle, composed by Paula Gamache. It was clued as “An electron’s path.” I have multiple issues about this.

1) There are multiple online dictionary entries stating orbit as being the path of an electron around the nucleus of an atom. Therefore, Paula Gamache is entirely justified in cluing orbit as “An electron’s path.” I had a conversation with UK crossword setter Cincinnus about this issue, and he pointed out to me that if I didn’t like this, I had an issue with the dictionary writers, not him.

2) On the other hand, this definition of orbit has been overtaken by events. First of all, the path of an electron isn’t even remotely like the orbit of a planet around a star. The path of an electron is twistier than the flight of a gnat-hungry swallow. With the exception of hydrogen, an electron never goes all the way around the nucleus, on account of it running into another electron, and being electromagnetically repelled back. There are regions where electrons are likely to be, and these regions have been both modeled mathematically and observed experimentally. These regions are called orbitals. Here’s a picture of some of them.

I’m showing you these shapes to show that any connection between the shapes of orbitals, and the shapes of the orbits of planets is tenuous at best. Robert Millikan coined the term orbital in 1932. It was a shortening of the phrase “orbital wave functions.” Those funny-looking things up there are the solutions to orbital wave functions. So even though I don’t like the word orbital because it sounds so much like orbit, since Robert Millikan is a big deal in physics, and he’s the guy that did the heavy lifting, he can call it what he wants.

So even though I don’t have an issue with Paula Gamache and Cincinnus because the dictionary justifies their cluing, I have an issue with Paula Gamache and Cincinnus for making a clue that is clearly untrue, and then using a dictionary entry that is clearly no longer correct to justify their cluing. Got that? I don’t know if Will Shortz has gotten letters about this, but he’s going to get one from me.

But I not only have an issues with dictionary writers and crossword composers, I have an issue with graphic artists as well. Most notably, I have an issue with Apple. It has nothing to do with anything about their hardware or software. I have an issue with the Genius Bar logo.

This image of an atom is an utterly outdated image, and yet Apple, who is supposed to be the brand of innovation, the brand of thinking differently, is using this, this archaic image. My only consolation is that the Genius at the Genius Bar agreed with me without blinking that it was past it’s sell-by date.

I’ve considered when words should be retired for being out of date. But this is a new area of exploration, considering when definitions should be retired for being out of date.

Technorati: orbitals, orbits