- #1
Gary King
is it possible for an atom to have no electrons?
chem_tr said:ZapperZ, I am doubtful about this. When you write the alpha particle, [itex]^{4}_{2}He[/itex], you'll see that two electrons are present as this compound is neutral and monoatomic. You'd be correct if this compound were a 2+ ion. Or is there something I don't know?
chem_tr said:ZapperZ, I am doubtful about this. When you write the alpha particle, [itex]^{4}_{2}He[/itex], you'll see that two electrons are present as this compound is neutral and monoatomic. You'd be correct if this compound were a 2+ ion. Or is there something I don't know?
chem_tr said:\longrightarrow
chem_tr said:We understand that only small atoms can give all of their electrons; bigger atoms may be persuaded to give most of their electrons to yield unusual charges via core (nuclear) reactions, I think.
chem_tr said:ZapperZ, I am doubtful about this. When you write the alpha particle, [itex]^{4}_{2}He[/itex], you'll see that two electrons are present as this compound is neutral and monoatomic. You'd be correct if this compound were a 2+ ion. Or is there something I don't know?
so, in my opinion, No, it is not possible for an atom to have no elections becuase first of all it wouldn't be uncharged (which although is not included in the defintion above, needs to be true, other wise it is an ion), and second of all, it wouldn't share all the same characteristics of the element it should belong to, for example, the alpha particle above you all were talking about will not share the same properties as a helium atom will."A unit of matter, the smallest unit of an element, having all the characteristics of that element and consisting of a dense, central, positively charged nucleus surrounded by a system of electrons. The entire structure has an approximate diameter of 10-8 centimeter and characteristically remains undivided in chemical reactions except for limited removal, transfer, or exchange of certain electrons."
mrjeffy321 said:first of all it wouldn't be uncharged (which although is not included in the defintion above, needs to be true, other wise it is an ion),
mrjeffy321 said:well the question was whether it was possible for an atom to have no electrons, not whether protons (and possible neutrons) could exist without electrons.
chem_tr said:However, there are not many; the other alternatives are so unstable that we can conclude these two are the only easily available. Please consider [itex]\displaystyle Li^{3+},Be^{4+},B^{5+}[/itex]. Very high amounts of energy have to be given to provide these unusual oxidation states.
altered-gravity said:Perhaps, those that you mentioned could be produced by laser ablation (firing laser directly to the solid or to a MALDI)in spectroscopy labs but i´m not sure.
altered-gravity said:Yes, we are talking about fully charged plasmas, theese species are available in high energy physics labs.
Perhaps, those that you mentioned could be produced by laser ablation (firing laser directly to the solid or to a MALDI)in spectroscopy labs but i´m not sure.
ZapperZ said:Laser ablation typically does NOT produce plasma ions. If they do, they would not be used as a technique for thin film depostion since the stoichiometry of the film may be different than the target. There are, of course, exception to this as done at the National Ignition Facility. Here, the plasma is form via extremely intense laser source.
Zz.
altered-gravity said:Really? Now I´m confused. I´ve always thougth that the ablation plume was plasma. It´s a mixture of ions, neutrals, electrons.. A college of mine worked in a Pb ionisation experiment with laser ablation mass spectrometer and we always talked about ablation plume as plasma-like. Laser source was a standard commercial pulsed Nd:YAG (freq. doubled). Of course they were not "fully charged" species, Pb2+, Pb3+, neutrals and others.
Am I wrong? If you can clarify this to me I will be grateful. Thanks
ZapperZ said:Thus you preserve the composition of the target material in the thin film that formed
Zz.
Gary King said:is it possible for an atom to have no electrons?
AFJ said:So there could theoretically be some atoms with no electrons naturally, correct?
chem_tr said:ZapperZ, I am doubtful about this. When you write the alpha particle, [itex]^{4}_{2}He[/itex], you'll see that two electrons are present as this compound is neutral and monoatomic. You'd be correct if this compound were a 2+ ion. Or is there something I don't know?
Yes, an atom can exist without electrons. This type of atom is known as an ion, which has either gained or lost electrons, resulting in a net positive or negative charge.
Electrons play a crucial role in an atom as they determine its chemical and physical properties. They are negatively charged particles that orbit the nucleus of an atom, and their arrangement and number determine an element's properties.
Atoms without electrons behave differently depending on whether they have gained or lost electrons. Positively charged ions tend to attract other particles, while negatively charged ions tend to repel them.
No, an atom cannot exist without a nucleus. The nucleus is the central part of an atom that contains protons and neutrons. These particles are essential for the stability and identity of an atom.
Yes, it is possible for an atom to have more than one electron. In fact, most atoms have more than one electron. The number of electrons in an atom depends on the element and its atomic number.