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 N1s
) - 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. )
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).