• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Geometry of Electron Shells

Davidjayjordan

Banned
D
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
1,429
In a true debate, both sides present their evidence or theories, rather than just one being hit with questions. So allow me to ask for your opinions or theories on why there are 2, 8, 18, and 32 electrons in the shells going outward from the Nucleus of an atom.

You can of course say it is because of evolutionary chance and luck, or just say Mother Nature made it that way, or that there is no rthyme or reason or logic or matghematics or physics regarding such shells.

Or you can give your scientific reasoning, or mathematical reasoning.

I would hope for the latter rather than the former.

Thanks.


And maybe after you have FIRST been given a chance to stand behind some theory, and answer some questions about your theory.... I might give my thoughts.

But you go FIRST, the floor is yours.
 
Tell ya what, sport. When you can show that you understand the concepts of quantum numbers and orbitals, maybe I'll get back to you.

Otherwise, you're not worth the time.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
In a true debate, both sides present their evidence or theories, rather than just one being hit with questions. So allow me to ask for your opinions or theories on why there are 2, 8, 18, and 32 electrons in the shells going outward from the Nucleus of an atom.

...

But you go FIRST, the floor is yours.
Click to expand...

If the floor is mine, then I would like to use it to accuse you of movng the goalposts.

In a different thread, you argued that the Platonic solids were somehow the building blocks of the universe. You stated:

Davidjayjordan said:
Allow me to suggest that the geometry that the ancients knew and passed on in their Mystery Schools is the very basis that would help you connect up what you can't comprehend about all of creation.

...

The philosopher Plato concluded that they must be the fundamental building blocks – the atoms – of nature, and assigned to them what he believed to be the essential elements of the universe.
Click to expand...

I pointed out that as our ability to observe the universe gets better, these Platonic solids (cube, dodecahedron, icosahedron, octahedron, and tetrahedron) appear to have less and less to do with the natural order of anything. They are not the fundamental building blocks of matter. I pointed out that the shapes of atoms (teardrops, doughnuts, barbells, etc.) have no relation at all to these geometric oddities that the Greeks liked so much.

In answer to that criticism, you did two things: 1) you abandoned the thread; and 2) you moved your argument from talking about the shape of atoms to talking now about the number of electrons in atomic shells.

I can only assume that you intend to dazzle us with numerology showing some connection between the platonic solids and the number of electrons in electron shells. Of course, I have two objections: 1) This was not your original argument; and 2) Being all relatively low numbers, there is a 100% chance that there will be some sort of correspondence between some of them.

So go ahead and demand that we answer your questions. However, I shall not. I have seen it for what it is: a trap designed to get us to admit to certain numbers so that you can draw your conclusions about Greek geometry.

Good luck with your illogical nonsense.
 
Buckaroo said:
Tell ya what, sport. When you can show that you understand the concepts of quantum numbers and orbitals, maybe I'll get back to you.

Otherwise, you're not worth the time.
Click to expand...

Golly, I just realized that I didn't provide you with a *way* to demonstrate your understanding. Here's a good way to do it: solve Schrodinger's equation for the hydrogen atom, and tell us about it. If you can't, then STFU.
 
Davidjayjordan said:
In a true debate, both sides present their evidence or theories, rather than just one being hit with questions. So allow me to ask for your opinions or theories on why there are 2, 8, 18, and 32 electrons in the shells going outward from the Nucleus of an atom.

You can of course say it is because of evolutionary chance and luck, or just say Mother Nature made it that way, or that there is no rthyme or reason or logic or matghematics or physics regarding such shells.

Or you can give your scientific reasoning, or mathematical reasoning.
Click to expand...

This is actually VERY well understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_shell_configuration

I don't feel like duplicating the whole argument, but basically all it is is counting up the number of orthogonal spherical wave states that it's possible to construct (plus a factor of two from the electron spin). Nothing mysterious at all. And really, even a little bit of work on your part would have found this source. But you're not interested in actually finding out what science already knows, are you?
 
Hell, I'll even make it easy for you:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydsch.html

This site will hold your hand all the way through solving the PDE for the hydrogen atom. Go for it. Notice how the quantum numbers fall out of the equation? Oh, and you might want to learn something about the Pauli Exclusion Principle, as well. I can point you in the right direction, but you've got to do the work.
 
Last edited:
It's all bound up with Schrodinger's wave equations, I believe. It's not so much that the shells are like solid structures of a different shape, but because the probability of finding electrons between the shells is zero. Can't do the maths, I'm afraid.

The issue you're referring to is electron shell closure. As far as I remember, this is tied up with "quantum numbers" and Pauli's exclusion principle, which states that no two electrons can share the same set of four quantum numbers. The quantum numbers determine the electron's shell, subshell, spin (this distinguishes between the two electrons inhabiting the same orbital) and the shape of the orbital.

There's a good explanation at http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch6/quantum.html

I guess you could with equal justification ask why all snowflakes are hexagonal, but it's not magic; it's tied up with the crystalline proprties of water.
 
Wow! That's a lot of posts in the time it took to write one! Still, I can rest easy that this thread is in more competent hands than mine.
 
Traps or whatever aside I am interested to find out why these numbers occur. I can't work out what "all it is is counting up the number of orthogonal spherical wave states that it's possible to construct (plus a factor of two from the electron spin" means. Nor can I glean it from the Wikipedia article.

I can see from the diagrams that the electrons occupy a cloud space and those spaces cannot overlap. So I can see that 1 would just be a simple ball and two would be two balls. Is the doughnut between two balls the next natural shape to occupy the least space or something?

Is there a simple(ish) answer. I'm capable of understanding technical subjects but there are a lot of technical words in the article that lead to other words and so on leading me to believe it's going to take me months to understand more than I need to get the general idea.
 
Splossy said:
Is there a simple(ish) answer. I'm capable of understanding technical subjects but there are a lot of technical words in the article that lead to other words and so on leading me to believe it's going to take me months to understand more than I need to get the general idea.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there isn't a really simple answer that goes beyond the descriptive and into the explanatory. Basically the quantum numbers and particular shapes of the orbitals that describe the electrons in an atom fall out of solving Schrodingers equation, which is a partial differential equation that gets pretty hairy once you go beyond very simple cases.

One of the upshots of this equation is all the chemical bookkeeping we learned in high-school or college chemistry. I was frustrated as hell with these courses for not being able to tell me why the rules were the way they were, until I took my first quantum mechanics class.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
If the floor is mine, then I would like to use it to accuse you of movng the goalposts.

In a different thread, you argued that the Platonic solids were somehow the building blocks of the universe. You stated:



I pointed out that as our ability to observe the universe gets better, these Platonic solids (cube, dodecahedron, icosahedron, octahedron, and tetrahedron) appear to have less and less to do with the natural order of anything. They are not the fundamental building blocks of matter. I pointed out that the shapes of atoms (teardrops, doughnuts, barbells, etc.) have no relation at all to these geometric oddities that the Greeks liked so much.

In answer to that criticism, you did two things: 1) you abandoned the thread; and 2) you moved your argument from talking about the shape of atoms to talking now about the number of electrons in atomic shells.

I can only assume that you intend to dazzle us with numerology showing some connection between the platonic solids and the number of electrons in electron shells. Of course, I have two objections: 1) This was not your original argument; and 2) Being all relatively low numbers, there is a 100% chance that there will be some sort of correspondence between some of them.

So go ahead and demand that we answer your questions. However, I shall not. I have seen it for what it is: a trap designed to get us to admit to certain numbers so that you can draw your conclusions about Greek geometry.

Good luck with your illogical nonsense.
Click to expand...

Leader, just learn to lead rather than follow. State your theory FIRST, then I shall state mine. The floor remains yours.
 
Buckaroo said:
Unfortunately, there isn't really simple answer that goes beyond the descriptive and into the explanatory. But the upshot is that the quantum numbers and particular shapes of the orbitals that describe the electrons in an atom fall out of solving Schrodingers equation, which is a partial differential equation that gets pretty hairy once you go beyond very simple cases.

One of the end results of this equation is all the chemical bookkeeping we learned in high-school or college chemistry. I was frustrated as hell with these courses for not being able to tell me why the rules were the way they were, until I took my first quantum mechanics class.
Click to expand...

Buckaroo, may I suggest that truths are simplier than you can imagine. Just learn to discern what is important and then formulate an opinion based on important truths.

Lifes mysteries are not just for the so called intellectual, for they sometimes are totally blind and bias. True skeptics are limited more by lack of insight as most of us surely have the God given brains to figure out what has been created.

Don;t look to others to SOLVE problems, when we personnally can figure out much much more than what we think, if we THINK.

So give it a go, and see what you come up with. Thanks
 
Honestly....do you really think you are likely to have a theory that competes with the quantum theory?

Some unbelievably smart people dedicated every waking minute of their lives to come up with these theories. Maybe I'm wrong but I have a feeling your theory won't be quite so well thought out...

Buckaroo: would I be right in saying that these shapes are purely mathematical contructs anyway? Do the theories suggest those shapes actually exist in 3d space in a meaningful way?
 
Splossy said:
Traps or whatever aside I am interested to find out why these numbers occur. I can't work out what "all it is is counting up the number of orthogonal spherical wave states that it's possible to construct (plus a factor of two from the electron spin" means. Nor can I glean it from the Wikipedia article.

I can see from the diagrams that the electrons occupy a cloud space and those spaces cannot overlap. So I can see that 1 would just be a simple ball and two would be two balls. Is the doughnut between two balls the next natural shape to occupy the least space or something?

Is there a simple(ish) answer. I'm capable of understanding technical subjects but there are a lot of technical words in the article that lead to other words and so on leading me to believe it's going to take me months to understand more than I need to get the general idea.
Click to expand...

Good thought processes, Slossy as it is obvious you are truly trying to figure it out. Good on ya.
 
Djj,

the theory has already been expressed.

I would say that before you're even challenged to solve the Hydrogen atom, you demonstrate to us your knowledge of spherical coordinates, and demonstrate transformations between cartesian and spherical coordinates, and demonstrate basic proficiency with the calculus used to solve problems in spherical coordinates.

Then you can tell us about Schroedinger's equation, the case of the time-independent Schroedinger equation, then solve it for simple potentials in the one dimensional case... AND THEN... in spherical coordinates.

That's the sequence (more or less) that it's done in 'weak, useless, sheep-to-the-slaughter' physics programs. I should know.

...

Or you can accept that the Pauli Exclusion Principle has been verified by experiment.

...

ETA: Your computer uses transistors. If you don't understand, or worse, deny the relationship between Quantum Mechanics and the technology you're using, you shouldn't be allowed to use it. By the way, from engineers everywhere... for the ability to express your idiotic opinions on forums like this... you're welcome.
 
Last edited:
Big Al said:
It's all bound up with Schrodinger's wave equations, I believe. It's not so much that the shells are like solid structures of a different shape, but because the probability of finding electrons between the shells is zero. Can't do the maths, I'm afraid.

The issue you're referring to is electron shell closure. As far as I remember, this is tied up with "quantum numbers" and Pauli's exclusion principle, which states that no two electrons can share the same set of four quantum numbers. The quantum numbers determine the electron's shell, subshell, spin (this distinguishes between the two electrons inhabiting the same orbital) and the shape of the orbital.

There's a good explanation at http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch6/quantum.html

I guess you could with equal justification ask why all snowflakes are hexagonal, but it's not magic; it's tied up with the crystalline proprties of water.
Click to expand...


Big Al, a little complicated.... but GOOD possible Research and a good contribution worth studying.

As there is a difference between shells, a space between shells which literally establishes shells. But why are they in these shells, and why does it take 2, then 8, then 18, then 32 electrons to fill up those shells.

Is the answer simplier....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom