So how are valence electron shells form?
Menaus
Posts: 21
This question has always bothered me since I've been taught of the idea. How do two electrons form a complete shell, then 8 after? What is so special about the number 8 and 2? As a disclaimer, I'm only currently taking high school chemistry, so my knowledge is very small on this subject.
Well after substantial thinking on random topics completely unrelated to the subject, I may have found a solution, however I have yet to actually elucidate the solution -- I just have a hunch that this set of logic applies to the problem I am considering.
First, consider two types of objects (o), objects of size A, and those of size B. Objects of size B are, as a rule, smaller than size A. We also have objects of size C, D, etc. ad infinitum, which all follow the same rule -- the next object in the set is always smaller than the previous object. Now, if we take any arbitrary number of these objects of any arbitrary size (l) (that is, the set of all objects of the mentioned sizes, A, B, C, etc.) and arbitrarily arrange them in a finite space (s), we will usually attain the most amount of objects with the least amount of space taken if we start with the objects of greater size, that is the ratio of objects to space taken up by these objects, o/s, if those objects must vary in size, and those objects cannot move through/into each other. That is, they must collide. Furthermore, if we take two objects of arbitrary size, say, G and V, then there will be a certain ratio in said finite space between the number of objects of size G, and of size V.
This is what I purport: The system of valence electron shells work upon the same logic, save that instead of concerning size, we concern forces (electromagnetic forces)
I just wanted to get these thoughts on paper before I forgot them.
Well after substantial thinking on random topics completely unrelated to the subject, I may have found a solution, however I have yet to actually elucidate the solution -- I just have a hunch that this set of logic applies to the problem I am considering.
First, consider two types of objects (o), objects of size A, and those of size B. Objects of size B are, as a rule, smaller than size A. We also have objects of size C, D, etc. ad infinitum, which all follow the same rule -- the next object in the set is always smaller than the previous object. Now, if we take any arbitrary number of these objects of any arbitrary size (l) (that is, the set of all objects of the mentioned sizes, A, B, C, etc.) and arbitrarily arrange them in a finite space (s), we will usually attain the most amount of objects with the least amount of space taken if we start with the objects of greater size, that is the ratio of objects to space taken up by these objects, o/s, if those objects must vary in size, and those objects cannot move through/into each other. That is, they must collide. Furthermore, if we take two objects of arbitrary size, say, G and V, then there will be a certain ratio in said finite space between the number of objects of size G, and of size V.
This is what I purport: The system of valence electron shells work upon the same logic, save that instead of concerning size, we concern forces (electromagnetic forces)
I just wanted to get these thoughts on paper before I forgot them.
Comments
Now would be a good time to apply reciprocal thinking Because these orbitals are believed to be shells which represent a charged particle in motion; and the size of each object (A,B,C,D...) are representative of the volume swept out by the motion of the particle. Then what possible orbital shapes and volumes are possible assuming that the size and speed of the particles are the same.
The first is that there is a single electron particle rotating around a single proton particle (thinking at simply the level of a hydrogen atom). This is simple, but it has no explanation of the problem at hand (valence shells). Also, A single electron would imply that the hydrogen atom is polarized. Although there would be no net field, on the side closer to the electron there would be a stronger negative field, and on the side closer to a proton there would be a stronger positive field. The speed of the electron might render this polarization insubstantial, however. If this is true then we should see no polarization at all. We know that there is a stronger negative electric field outside an atom, which means the above cannot be true. Furthermore, there would also be a wobble on the proton since the force is in one direct, similar to the wobble seen in stars. I don't think we've detected a wobble in the proton, so I'm not sure the single electron particle model is consistent with observation.
Then there's the cloud model. The cloud model fixes the polarization and wobble problems, but it does so in a completely incoherent and disconnected way. So now the electron is a "cloud". Where do we say the positive field of the proton is coupled to? Where does the gravitational field of the proton couple to? If the electron is a cloud, why can't a proton be a cloud too? How would we determine the way in which these clouds interact? But we know that electrons are a particle with a definite size. If electrons are a cloud, then they would have indefinite size, or at least if they are a cloud around a proton they would be larger than a proton. I still have no idea how this explains the valence shell. It simply states that they are there, and since we can't make sense of them we give up and say that the electron is in the shell somewhere. I have no idea how the cloud model works, and of course if I asked a physicist to explain it they would probably tell me that I need to go to college before he could explain it.
Maybe if the electron were split in two the forces would balance and we'd see no wobble as well as the stronger negative electric field outside of the atom, but of course as far as I know we have no idea as to the structure of the electron.