/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4517863]

Why do all atoms want 8 electrons in their outer shell?

[Anonymous No.4517871]

cuz thats how god made em

[Anonymous No.4517874]

[Anonymous No.4517878]

Wow... after 2 years of quantum mechanics, I actually have no goddamn clue XD

[Anonymous No.4517895]

With the 8th electron, the Franklin Mint also sends you the attractive display case with backlight, perfect for displaying your collection.

[Anonymous No.4517897]

Bitches don't know about transition metals

[OP No.4517899]

The answer has to lie within actual mathematics and not just atomic theory. It must just resonate?
I'm thinking of the prime factorization of 8 which would just be 2*2*2
2 has a very nice symmetry to it I suppose, but why should nature care about those things? Two is binary possibly it-.. meh

[Anonymous No.4517901]

It wants to have a full outer shell of electrons. For the small (size) elements that follow the octet rule, a full outer shell just so happens to consist of eight electrons. Most of the larger, less common elements, and even some of the first 25 break this "rule," however. For them, it's just more energetically favorable to fill another outer shell (one that won't leave them with eight valance electrons).

[Anonymous No.4517902]

>>4517899
If you think that nature cares about being pretty or having symmetry then you are the least qualified person to post on /sci/

[Anonymous No.4517904]

Inorganic chemistry: the timeless art of counting to 18

[Anonymous No.4517909]

>>4517901
Correct, nature is "lazy" as we would put it. It wants to put in as little energy as possible. I remember General Chemistry, but then I got to taste the sweet nectar of Organic Chemistry.

[Anonymous No.4517913]

Because this guy said so.

[Anonymous No.4517915]

Shells are a lie-to-children. It's more accurate to think of electrons living in molecular orbitals or in bands.

[Anonymous No.4517916]

>>4517913
Only a faggot would create homosexuals.

[Anonymous No.4517919]

>>4517915
Good ol' MO theory.

[OP No.4517921]

>>4517902
You read me wrong. When I said that, I was trying to get across the point that if it is because of a simple symmetry, that there should be another reason other than nature simply caring.

>>4517909
Yes I know that nature is lazy, but I want to know why 8 is the energy efficient configuration (for those that follow this octet rule.)

[OP No.4517935]

>>4517913
Have you seen the Sistine Chapel? The feeling of simultaneously being overwhelmed and underwhelmed is such an odd one.

[Anonymous No.4517938]

>>4517921
If you know your orbital theory then you will understand this.
Let's say we are working with Fluorine.
It has seven valence electrons. 2 in the S orbital, 2 in the 2P(X) orbital, 2 in the 2P(Y) orbital, 1 in the 2P(Z) orbital. This bonding will stabilize the energy between Fluorine and another element such as Sodium, lithium, or another fluorine. Giving each molecule a stable configuration due to having a free electron that is bonded. The energy to cleave that bond is immense after the sharing of electrons.

[Anonymous No.4517979]

Apparently no one fucking knows.

[Anonymous No.4517985]

>>4517863
They don't. But, look up the p-shells, etc.

[Anonymous No.4518010]

The short answer is that this is the lowest energy configuration. The reason is that each bond formed stabilizes or lowers the energy of a molecule. The maximum number of bonds and unshared pairs an atom that fits the octet rule can have is four, or eight electrons.

This is a simple picture without clubbing you over the head with quantum chemistry, d orbitals, or molecular orbital theory. These all explain the atoms that are exceptions to the octet rule. The above explanation only applies to covalently bonded molecules.

[Anonymous No.4518033]

>>4517899
You should probably skim a chemistry book written after 1950 if you think chemistry isn't based on math. Pic related