Chemical Forums
Specialty Chemistry Forums => Other Sciences Question Forum => Topic started by: aznpride2pac on October 31, 2005, 10:19:02 PM
-
In an atom, the maximum number of electrons that each orbit can hold are 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 2. The sum of all these numbers equal to 120. So what would the electron configuration for elements after the 120th be?
-
How many elements are there? ???
-
I say 111 confirmed and 118 claimed elements.
-
It's been said that orbitals are nice when discussing elemental configuration, but bad when talking facts. electrons are just energy - it's that simple.
As someone else pointed out elsewhere on this site, new elements have been made that have donut shaped nucleus's. This lends some strange alternate ideas to electron probable orbital shapes and relative energy potentials {geometry}.Possibly electrons orbiting spirally allow more to temporarily belong to a shell than is really known?
In any event, should you discover element 120- we won't be the group to be first informed most likely.
Andy :'(
-
I say 111 confirmed and 118 claimed elements
I thought about the same.
-
the maximum number of electrons that each orbit can hold are 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 2
Where did you get this information from?
-
.
Is that the configuration for Mercury above?
http://education.jlab.org/qa/electron_config.html defines it as
Energy Level
(Principal Quantum N#) Shell Letter Electron Capacity
1 K 2
2 L 8
3 M 18
4 N 32
5 O 50
6 P 72
Wikopedia states :
Aufbau principle
In the ground state of an atom (the condition in which it is ordinarily found), the electron configuration generally follows Aufbau principle. According to this principle, electrons enter into states in order of the states' increasing energy; i.e., the first electron goes into the lowest-energy state, the second into the next lowest, and so on. The order in which the states are filled is as follows:
s p d f g
1 1
2 2 3
3 4 5 7
4 6 8 10 13
5 9 11 14 17 21
6 12 15 18 22
7 16 19 23
8 20 24
A pair of electrons with identical spins has slightly more energy than a pair of electrons with opposite spins. Since two electrons in the same orbital must have opposite spins, this causes electrons to prefer to occupy different orbitals. This preference manifests itself if a subshell with l > 0 (one that contains more than one orbital) is less than full. For instance, if a p subshell contains four electrons, two electrons will be forced to occupy one orbital, but the other two electrons will occupy both of the other orbitals, and their spins will be equal. This phenomenon is called Hund's rule.
The Aufbau principle can be applied, in a modified form, to the protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus (see the shell model of nuclear physics).
Andy
-
so what would the electron configuration be for elements after the 120th? 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 2... would it just be repeating the numbers?
-
Do you understand the difference between the two? See it in your mind as lower energy rings as you move away from the nucleus. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8th orbits away each one a lesser strength as you move away further and further. The energy holding the outer electrons to the atom are very weak in the larger {Radioactive} elements.
The s, p, d, f, and g are in reference to geometric orientations of the prefered filling order of EACH orbit number. This has to do with gamma, beta, and alpha orientation in bond linkages. so if you aren't going to be discussing that in your class - don't worry about that just yet.
Do they repeat. Yes. The orbits have to be balanced and they balance by filling these orbits in order.
These orbits aren't circular {at least in the lowere s,p,d}, think figure eights instead. Now you are beginning to view how the geometry and bonds will occur from atom to atom in a preferred alignment manner.
Okay? They repeat this filling system for EACH orbit level of 1{K}, 2{L}, 3{M}, 4{N}, 5{O}, 6{P}, and possibly extra orbits of 7 and 8 if these extra elements are proven to exist in any natural state at any magnetic or gravimetric sustainable condition. Of course not each atom will have the same upper filled shells, thus their individual difference in chemical and physical properties..
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/periodic-table/econ.html
The existance of some of these orbits will interfere with lower level filled geometries in large atoms. Dropping at least the p and d most likely in unknown large atoms.
Do you understand that, or should I/we try again? this is not an easy topic beyond this level. The Physicists are arguing about the actual configuration in some circles of many common elements and compounds. Stereochemistry is not a simple subject matter either. don't feel bad if you are confused, just ry to explain your issue. Maybe I'm guessing your point of confusion wrongly.
Andy
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_electron_configuration_table
-
Though I'm not sure if this will help or hinder you, one must also remember that the orbitals are NOT physical objects. They are just regions in space. If you could look at an atom, you wouldn't see these orbitals in their geometric shapes. The only things you'd see are the nucleus and an occasional electron whipping around. Eventually there will come a point where you simply cannot add any more electrons to an atom as there will simply not be enough space around an individual nucleus to fit all those electrons. While the positive charge of the nucleus may be large, the shear number of electrons around the nucleus will make the outer electrons feel almost no pull. So I'm not sure what the number is, but I do believe in theory that there is some limit as to how high of an atomic number a neutrally charged atom can exist.
-
In an atom, the maximum number of electrons that each orbit can hold are 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 2.
That's not true, but you didn't answered when I asked where did you get this information from.
Every electron in atom is described by 4 quantum numbers - n, l, m and s.
n (shell number - if that's its English name) can take any natural value - 1, 2, 3 and so on.
For given n:
l can take any value from the range 0 <= l <= n-1
For given l:
m can take any value from the range -l <= m <= l
and s can be either +1/2 or -1/2.
Each electron is described by unique set of quantum numbers - there are no two electrons with the same quantum numbers in the atom.
Now try to calculate how many different electrons can be on every shell.
Correct numbers (as Oldtimer wrote) are:
2 8 18 32 50 72 98 128...
So as you see there is no 120 limit.
-
While the positive charge of the nucleus may be large, the shear number of electrons around the nucleus will make the outer electrons feel almost no pull. So I'm not sure what the number is, but I do believe in theory that there is some limit as to how high of an atomic number a neutrally charged atom can exist.
That's an interesting approach, but I think it is slightly wrong.
Assume you have a single atom that has n charged nucleus, and there are n-1 electrons on the orbitals.
If you look at the atom from the distance it has a +1 charge, so it will always pull an additional electron. If you are far enough it doesn't matter what is inside, that's the Gauss's law.
However, you are right that the valence electron will be far from the nucleus, so the force attracting it will be much smaller. Thus I think correct approach is that there is no limit on the size of neutrally charged atom, just the first and subsequent ionization energies will be smaller and smaller.
-
That's an interesting approach, but I think it is slightly wrong.
Assume you have a single atom that has n charged nucleus, and there are n-1 electrons on the orbitals.
If you look at the atom from the distance it has a +1 charge, so it will always pull an additional electron. If you are far enough it doesn't matter what is inside, that's the Gauss's law.
However, you are right that the valence electron will be far from the nucleus, so the force attracting it will be much smaller. Thus I think correct approach is that there is no limit on the size of neutrally charged atom, just the first and subsequent ionization energies will be smaller and smaller.
I think this is a really interesting topic. Throwing aside the fact that as the nucleus gets larger the repulsive forces inside will make it near impossible for it to stay together, the combined distance from the positive nucleus with the repulsion felt by the larger number of electrons will weaken the pull felt by that external electron. You'll eventually reach a point where the electron is no longer attracted to the nucleus anymore. My feeling is that this would be a very high atomic number and that the ability of the nucleus to keep itself together would be the limiting factor and not the electrons, but I honestly think that there is a limit to how many electrons can exist in a neutral atom.
In another unrelated note, is it a correct assumption that the energy the 1s1 electron has in Cesium is MUCH greater than the energy the 1s1 electron has in hydrogen? In hydrogen, that electron feels the pull of 1 proton, but in Cesium it feels the pull of 55 protons. The electron MUST be of a greater energy in order to avoid collapsing into the nucleus. So as the nucleus gets larger, there will come a point where the electron simply cannot exist there due to the energy it would need to have.
-
I believe the physics majors will disagree with our opinion though. It doesn't fit the previous chapters they've mastered.
Yet the planetary chemists {such as jdurg?} will know that gravity of other worlds will exert greater magnetic influence on the elements in their environment. suppose if the gravity of say Jupiter is so great that naturally occuring elements there means they are all heavy isotopes instead of our versions. What would that do to our periodic table?
The probability that super heavy elements don't have an s ,p, or d orbital I also feel is likely because of radioactive decay destroying the element so quickly from internal forces. The elements must be stable.
Extra high gravity may alter the filling sequence earlier too, for elements like Mercury even. I would suppose that the periodic table would be empty below Francium and Radium. And a series of elements like the Lanthanoids and Actinoids would be found from something like ununtrium {which is gaseous in our gravity constraints}.
I don't know for certain though.
Andy
-
I was - all the time - putting nucleus problems on side. Perhaps half of the discussion should be preceded by "Assuming there are no stability problems with heavy elements, how are electrons going to fill up the shells?"
-
Considering the properties of elements that don't even exist anywhere we can actually find them is not really neccessary anyhow. What would we do with element 122?
We can't even work with uranium much the way things are here on Earth.
-
Well once the nucleus has enough protons to exert a pull on the 1s electron requiring the 1s electron to move FASTER than the speed of light, then the limit is reached because nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
EDIT: Based on some very huge assumptions and very rough calculations, you'd need an atomic number of 9400 for the nucleus to have enough positive charge to force the electron to travel at the speed of light to remain outside the nucleus. YIKES!
-
Well once the nucleus has enough protons to exert a pull on the 1s electron requiring the 1s electron to move FASTER than the speed of light, then the limit is reached because nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
No such limit.
mv= m/sqrt(1+v2/c2)
-
No such limit.
mv= m/sqrt(1+v2/c2)
Shouldn't that be the square root of (1-v2/c2)? I have NEVER seen the equation where it's 1+. It's always been 1- because it's stating that you cannot move faster than the speed of light, or even at the speed of light, because then that equation would have no answer to it as you cannot get a square root 0 or a negative number.
-
Shouldn't that be the square root of (1-v2/c2)?
Typo :(
But still no such limit :)
-
Yeah there is a limit. You cannot take the square root of zero or a negative number. Any time your velocity is equal to the speed of light or is greater, that equation cannot be solved. :)
-
Either way, I cannot fathom an atom with a nucleus which weighs over 9400 amu. ;D Those atoms would be so big that a mole would probably weigh close to a metric ton. lol.
-
If the nucleus is Axial, then what are the interior electrons doing? Is the 1s pair just trapped in the center of the nucleus, unable to move away or any closer?
This may not be appropriate, but I think of a donut magnet when picturing the nucleus. Throw some iron filings in the area and they are visually differing from the orbits or flux flow of a single button magnet. the filings would draw into the center heavily. but the filings aren't up to the task of competing as an electron would. And certainly don't have the velocity or spin to help.
But they also will leave some filings in stasis directly in the center of the donut. Indicating to me at least that the 1s orientation would be along the axis of the 'donut hole', the 2 s then being an enormous longitudinal orientation with fat exterior wave. And the 2p orbital would be similarly a huge latitudinal system.
This is the only link I can find.
http://jeries.rihani.com/
Andy
-
Yeah there is a limit. You cannot take the square root of zero or a negative number. Any time your velocity is equal to the speed of light or is greater, that equation cannot be solved.
No. Electron can take ANY energy, regardless of how high, without the need of reaching light speed. And I can take a square root of zero - you can't? :)
-
No. Electron can take ANY energy, regardless of how high, without the need of reaching light speed. And I can take a square root of zero - you can't? :)
My bad. I meant divide by zero. So sure you can get the square root of zero, but try solving your equation now with m/0. ;)
I'm sorry, but nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. It just can't happen.
-
I'm sorry, but nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. It just can't happen.
The problem is, I don't understand where do you see a need for speed higher then c. Can you explain?
-
The problem is, I don't understand where do you see a need for speed higher then c. Can you explain?
Me thinks that there is just a slight little misunderstanding going on. :D
My discussion is on the 1s electrons in a big, heavy atom. The 1s electron is closer to the nucleus than any other electron in an atom. Therefore, in the heavier atoms those electrons feel a MUCH stronger pull from the higher positive charge of the nucleus than they do in a lighter atom. I believe that the distance between the nucleus and the 1s subshell is pretty consistant amongst the elements. Therefore, as you move up in the periodic table those 1s electrons would have to be zipping around a bit faster in order to prevent themselves from getting sucked into the nucleus, correct?
Since the majority of the electron's energy comes from its movement, if the electron slows down it gets pulled further towards the nucleus. I'm just stating that there will come a point where the nucleus will have such a high positive charge that the electron will simply not be able to stay out of the nucleus. It won't be able to move fast enough to prevent itself from being sucked into the high positive charge of the nucleus. That's where the whole 'speed of light' concept came into play. I was stating that once the nucleus gets big enough (my incredibly rough and likely erroneous value of 9400 protons), the electron would have to move faster than the speed of light in order to have enough energy to remain outside of the nucleus. Since the speed of light cannot be eclipsed, that can't happen and that would be the limit. Kind of get what I'm stating here? (I still think we've just misinterpreted each other somewhere. ;D )
-
Considering the properties of elements that don't even exist anywhere we can actually find them is not really neccessary anyhow. What would we do with element 122?
We can't even work with uranium much the way things are here on Earth.
How can you be a chemist and not want to know the chemistry of a new element?
Jdurg: There are elements above 9800amu, they are called neutron stars. But, there is a huge gap in between neutron stars and 9400amu. :P
-
Me thinks that there is just a slight little misunderstanding going on.
Not for the first time, not for the last time ;) As long as we want to clarify situation, that's not the problem :)
My discussion is on the 1s electrons in a big, heavy atom. The 1s electron is closer to the nucleus than any other electron in an atom. Therefore, in the heavier atoms those electrons feel a MUCH stronger pull from the higher positive charge of the nucleus than they do in a lighter atom.
I suppose you were referring to the planetary model, which - since Schroedinger - is of no use?
I believe that the distance between the nucleus and the 1s subshell is pretty consistant amongst the elements.
It is not.
Wave function for the 1s takes form N1sexp(-Zr/a0) - N1s is normalization constant, a0 is a radius of first Bohr orbit and is sometimes used as length unit in quantum chemistry.
Note, that the shape of the function is dependent on the nucleus charge, thus the higher the charge, the closer the maximum electron density is to the nucleus.
Therefore, as you move up in the periodic table those 1s electrons would have to be zipping around a bit faster in order to prevent themselves from getting sucked into the nucleus, correct?
In terms of planetary model, yes. But that's one of the reasons that planetary model is no longer used ;)
Since the majority of the electron's energy comes from its movement, if the electron slows down it gets pulled further towards the nucleus.
Once again - in terms of planetary model only. IIRC speed of the electron on the orbitals is constant and has something to do with subtle structure constant (? no idea how it is called in English). But at the same time speed of the electron is not a thing that makes sense in the case of orbitals, as electron on the orbital doesn't behave like a particle. Thus all analogies with planetary systems are wrong.
I'm just stating that there will come a point where the nucleus will have such a high positive charge that the electron will simply not be able to stay out of the nucleus. It won't be able to move fast enough to prevent itself from being sucked into the high positive charge of the nucleus. That's where the whole 'speed of light' concept came into play. I was stating that once the nucleus gets big enough (my incredibly rough and likely erroneous value of 9400 protons), the electron would have to move faster than the speed of light in order to have enough energy to remain outside of the nucleus. Since the speed of light cannot be eclipsed, that can't happen and that would be the limit. Kind of get what I'm stating here? (I still think we've just misinterpreted each other somewhere. ;D )
OK, I understand your point, but as I explained above it is wrong. I don't think I will be able to explain it better - I was never good in quantum chemistry and I have passed last exam on the subject in February 1983 so my knowledge in the area holds mostly on rust and may fall down when touched ;)
I was all the time under impression that you are referring to the fact that low orbits in heavy atoms are of high energy (which is true) and that the electron to have such high energy will have to move faster then light (which is not true).
-
I understand. ;D I am fully aware that the electrons don't orbit in a nice circular pattern. I was just using the 1s orbital because it's a spherical one so the electron, while not moving in a planetary like orbit, will still be moving around in that spherical area the vast majority of the time.
I think your last sentence pretty much sums it up. The 1s shell is simply a mathetmatical solution stating that 95% of the time the 1s electron will be found in that region. The electron, meanwhile, can zip in and around that area in any which direction it wants to. It has enough energy to move closer to the nucleus and then move back away without falling into it. If the nucleus gets too big, however, the electron would then need a larger amount of energy in order to obtain the speed needed to move away from the nucleus. Otherwise if it got a bit too close it wouldn't be able to come back out and would collapse into the nucleus. I think it would be a process similar to electron capture where the inner electron gets sucked into the nucleus and is anhilliated. When you get to a certain point, the nucleus will be so big that the inner electrons simply can't get away from the pull.
Mitch, I was guestimating an atomic number of 9400. For Element 9400, it's atomic mass would be egregiously huge! ;D
-
Those ideals don't work out anywhere but in 1st year chem. Energy shells don't even work long past Organic. We could go to solid State Physics, but that's rife with confusions in definitions as well.
At some point we'll just have to say the sum components of the Atom are something requiring either a classified document we can't read - or another model to explain all the actions of its' componentry.
Wave energy is nice, doesn't explain mass transfer. Mass transfer never really occurs subatomically. And covalent bonds are a misnomer. We're in a mess! Now add experimental elements that haven't been confirmed to exist, and have never been combined with anything for further understanding. Why do you guys' listen to Physicists? Haven't you learned your lesson about guys promoting their own multi-billion dollar fancy dream to "explore" their use of a pencil? SSC anyone? They've already taken over the Space Station {as far as I'm concerned}to study solar and planetary forces.
Forget your micro gravity issues right away. We don't know what we are doing and they're trying to explain why to suit their own agenda.
Andy ::)
-
.
As far as the Space Station.
I just wish the "super" purity concerns of at least medical drugs were addressed. Then there are the engineering aspects of extremely accurate electric eyes, nervous system developement, and rapid solidification works for countless real world needs.
Pratt Whitneys' Rapid Solidification machine is so massive, and all they can do is gripe about the purity levels required to make simple ceramic jet engine parts. what about some computer chips and body organs like ear drums etc.?
Oh well, good nite and good day people.
Andy
-
Define experimental elements? The chemistry of elements 104-108 are being studied intensely. And chemistry experiments with element 114 and a new better chemistry experiment with element 112 will be done during the first half of next year.
-
Rutherfordium 104
22Ne + 242Pu 260104Rf + 4 1n
Isolation of an observable quantity of rutherfordium has never been achieved.
Hassium 108
208Bi + 58Fe 265Hs + 1n
Isolation of an observable quantity of hassium has never been achieved, and may well never be. This is because hassium decays very rapidly through the emission of a-particles.
Roentgenium 111
209Bi + 64Ni 272Rg + 1n
Isolation of an observable quantity has never been achieved, and may well never be.
This recurring theme plays across the entire spectrum. It is my understanding that the first observance of elements like these was in Nuclear test blast chambers. So by flinging atoms about with extreme abandon and extreme heat and pressure they discovered that they could recreate this effect and the short living elements.
What a waste of time and resources.
I like the crystalline view of elements. That an accumillated {over billions of years} collection of subatomic particles define how these elements behave is enough for me to deal with just fine. Whether other elements actually exist or not with this effort of time and resources will not affect our life in any positive direction. At some point we just have to admit that the Earth is our chemistry set for some time into the future, we can not break the boundaries of the 'workable' periodic table - and don't need to.
Andy
-
You don't need an observable amount of an element to be able to study its chemistry. Some fundamental chemical principles are always at work regardless of sample size such as the law of mass action to think of one.
Hs269 has a half-life of 9.7 seconds that is more than enough time, to quickly generate the element do a chemical reaction and then test to see how it behaves relative to its homologues. Just because an element decays, doesn't mean its chemistry is different.
Studying the chemical properties of a new element isn't a great drain on the national treasury. Our budget is lower than most would imagine it costs to keep a program like this going. Too low in my humble opinion. And again with any federally funded program there is always more than just science at work. Nuclear chemistry research produces nuclear trained PhDs that will go out and be experts and stewards of the nations nuclear stockpiles. Just because you disagree with the value of the research doesn't mean the research shouldn't be done. And one never knows what you'll find.
Plus do you want all the elements named after Russians and Germans! :P
-
.
I can think of no appreciable need for anything like that, unless I want to rapidly oxidize something and blow it up with a grand violent explosive force. But to be honest, I'm not a Nuclear professional, and it may be a bit of professional pride, but spending the millions from this endeavor on Geothermal Power generation, or even just outright buying energy wasting homes to demolish them would be a much wiser expense.
And really, Russia has always claimed things like that before us anyway. Does it change anything? Not really because it's almost out there with the mind control experiments and the telekinesis stuff.
To me trips to Mars and fiddling with radioactive material are in the same ballpark. Certainly people benefit from the knowledge of this work, but it isn't me. I cannot be convinced that a more powerful N- bomb is worth anything. And Nuclear power is worse than retarded, it's a boast to future generations about knowledge that we pretend to utilize most effectively today.
Andy
-
Its okay, I won't fault your professional prejudices.