Atoms Seeking Valence Electrons: Why 8?

[Dual Op Amp]

simple question, why do atoms seek to have eight valence electrons?

 

[Gokul43201]

Simple answer, because the solution of the Schrodinger Equation requires it.

 

[Dual Op Amp]

What's the Schrodinger equasion?

 

[turin]

What's the Schrodinger equasion?

It is, as I understand it, the quasi-wave equation for a little piece of matter (particle) which was the first major attempt to explain the strange quantum nuances that arose in the laboratories across the world at the beginning of the twentieth century. The equation is "good enough" to describe stationary configurations, i.e. your valence electrons, though, in a situation that complicated, there is no technique to exactly solve it that I know of.

 

[Nenad]

the octet rule was known way befoure schroedinger found out his equation. The reason they seek to have 8 valence electrons is becuse this is the most stable arrangement for the atom. If the atom has less than 8, then the atom looses stability and becomes more reactive with other elements and compounds. (ie. Group 1 metals). And by the way, the valence shell can hace more than 8 electrons. It can have 2n^2 electrons.

 

[turin]

A rule is not an explanation of itself. Just because a phsyical phenomenon was known before a particular theory does not mean that the theory is invalid or that the phenomenon itself is a better explanation of itself. In fact, most theories arise to explain phenomena that are already well known. The purpose of a theory is not to explain only one particular phenomenon, but to relate different phenomena that did not have an apparent relationship before the theory to provide a deeper explanation than an obscure rule.

 

[NateTG]

Simple answer:
Because they do.

Theories - such as physics - only predict behaviors, they do not justify them.

That said, it's probably possible to derive the behavior from other theories.

 

[ZapperZ]

simple question, why do atoms seek to have eight valence electrons?

Ok folks. I'm just surprised why people are not questioning this assertion in the first place. Where in physics and chemistry does it say that "atoms seek to have eight valence electrons"?

I have a He atom. Where are the "8 valenece electrons" here?

What about atoms with the p-orbital being the valence shell? What about the ones with the f-orbital? And what about the half-filled d-orbitals? Aren't all those stable atoms too? So what is this "rule" that atoms have to "seek" 8 valence electrons?

<scratches head>

Zz.

 

[turin]

If you want to get picky, then you can ask about particular atoms. Of course the 8 electron rule is not completely general. I doubt that the original question was about the number 8 so much as it was about why some specific number (2, 8, 18, etc.).

 

[ZapperZ]

If you want to get picky, then you can ask about particular atoms. Of course the 8 electron rule is not completely general. I doubt that the original question was about the number 8 so much as it was about why some specific number (2, 8, 18, etc.).

Unfortunately, short of being a psychic, one doesn't know that. It is compounded by the fact that the original question is rather terse, and no references or sources were cited to where this "eight electrons" rule was found.

In fact, the ONLY atom that would want "eight electrons" in its valence shell is an atom with eight protons! This is only one particular atom. [Remember, the question asked about ATOMS, not molecules, not atoms in a solid state configuration, etc... or am I being "picky" again?] So there isn't even any notion of generalities here.

From where I stand, the whole original question is based on a false idea, or at best, extremely vague. So that's why I was puzzled that there was really an active followup with people attempting to answer it without anyone actually pointing out that the whole thing is based on a false premise in the first place.

Zz.

 

[turin]

I don't get it. Are you saying that hydrogen and oxygen are not atoms when they form a water molecule? Yes, I think that is being picky (excessively technical). The word, "atom," comes roughly from the Greek "indivisible." I don't know about anyone else, but when I think of an atom of matter, I think of the nucleas. If that is not technically correct, then shame on me.

Regarding your question about "where in chemistry ..." Well, I didn't take chemistry after high school, but I do remember some kind of dot diagram that we drew in my high school chemistry class. I specifically remember B, N, O, and C all reacting according to how the number of dots compared to 8. Then, I remember the explanation from the high school chemistry teacher that the atoms want to be like the noble gas atoms. This explanation actually did generalize the octet rule a bit to help explain hydrogen's desire for 2 valence electrons.

Perhaps, strictly classically, you could say that an atom fills its valence shell to the point that it becomes neutral, but if that's all there were to it, then it doesn't seem likely that there would even be chemistry. I am pretty convinced that there is chemistry, and furthermore, I am convinced that the octet rule (2n²) is not fundamental. I believe this is the issue, only because I remember how I felt in that chemistry class when I learned the strange rule. When I learned basic QM, it finally sort of made sense (as much sense as QM can make) in terms of energy eigenstates of the coulomb potential generated by the nucleas. (and yes, I realize it is emmensely more complicated than just a single weighted coulomb potential from the nucleas.)

The reason I like the Schroedinger Eq. explanation better than just stating the octet rule is that, while the octet rule is extremely limited to chemical reactions (and not even all of them), I believe the Schroedinger Eq. to offer an (at least qualitative) explanation for chemical reactions as well as many other things. In that sense, it is more satisfying to me, as a wanna-be physicist, to see how seemingly different natural phenomena are actually just different ways in which a more fundamental natural principle manifests.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't get it. Are you saying that hydrogen and oxygen are not atoms when they form a water molecule? Yes, I think that is being picky (excessively technical). The word, "atom," comes roughly from the Greek "indivisible." I don't know about anyone else, but when I think of an atom of matter, I think of the nucleas. If that is not technically correct, then shame on me.

Original queston: "simple question, why do atoms seek to have eight valence electrons?"

When I read something like that, I take it at FACE VALUE, meaning isolated atoms. If the person meant H2, or O2, then those are molecules. The eigenstates for molecules differ GREATLY than those of atoms. Just look at the hybridizations of the valence orbitals alone! Therefore, you cannot apply what you solved and know for "atoms" to "molecules" and get away with it. You literally have to resolve (if this is even possible without using any approximation) the Hamiltonian.

Moral of the story: when atoms are in close proximity to each other, especially of different species as in molecules and solid structures, atomic orbitals solutions can be easily thrown out of the window. The hybridized orbitals can look NOTHING like the orbitals of individual atoms. Thus, applying what molecules and atoms in solids would do to individual atoms is extremely suspect.

I still want to know where atoms in general SEEK to have 8 electrons in the valence shell. If this is true, we would be seeing atoms like H and He with extra electrons as the lowest energy state, and therefore, they would be common. Are they? I also tend to think this whole discussion is rather moot until the person who originally posted this question explains further.

Zz.

 

[turin]

I ... tend to think this whole discussion is rather moot until the person who originally posted this question explains further.

I will concede with you on this. I don't want to argue.

 

[Dual Op Amp]

I'm talking about the covelent bonding rule. For example the molecule of oxygen shares a double bond with another oxygen atom (O2). The oxygen atom has six valence electrons, and seeks to have eight. The atoms share two electrons, and for a brief moment one of them own all eight valence electrons. This is because one oxygen atom donates an electron, and so does the other. The two electrons orbit around the two atoms. Okay, so the oxygen has six, donates one, and now has five.
When the two electrons orbit around it, it has seven valence electrons. That's not suitable. There's where the double bond come's in. Actually, each oxygen atom donates two valence electrons. So, it now has four valence electrons. The four valence electrons orbit the oxygen atoms. For a very brief moment one atom has it's eight valence electrons. This is proven in every almost every molecule. Water, methane, ozone, oxygen. If you calculate the valence electrons, it always adds to eight. My question was why does it seek to have eight. I didn't mean to incite anything, I'm sixteen years old and interested.

 

[Dual Op Amp]

I still don't understand, does it have anything to do with the particle's interactions?

 

[Dual Op Amp]

Okay, I've learned a little more, but what I don't know is why the atom is more stable because it's valence shell is filled.
So, my question is, why is the atom stable when it has it's outer shell filled?

 

[Dr Transport]

I believe that the energy of an atomic level is minimized by filling a shell ( s-, p-, d- etc...) shell completely.

 

[Dual Op Amp]

Yes, but why?

 

[turin]

Yes, but why?

Observe post #2.

 

[Dual Op Amp]

Yes, I see post two. I also observed what came next, but none of you say why, when the valence shell is filled, it becomes stable.

 

[Dr Transport]

two electrons of opposite spin have an energy lower than two electrons of opposite spin. In the case of 8 electrons in an orbital, the electrons pair up in opposite spins. The reason for 2, then 8, then 18 electrons in filled shells is the following (I was waiting for someone else to get started on this point), is the following.

In an atom of the $$^{2S+1}L_{J}$$ variety, $$L$$ is the angular momentum,$$S$$ is the spin and $$J$$ is the total angular momentum $$J= L + S.$$ Now $$-J \leq L+S \leq +J$$, so for an atom $$S = \pm 1/2$$, and $$S$$ is less than $$L$$ in general, so for $$L = 0, 2S+1 = 2, J = 1/2$$,$$L = 1, 2S+1 = 2, J = 3/2$$, $$L = 2, 2S+1 = 2, J = 5/2$$. Now there are $$2J+1$$ angular momentum states, this is the basis behind the number if states in a closed shell.

(you guys are making me reach way, way back into my atomic physics coursework days...)

 

[Dual Op Amp]

two electrons of opposite spin have an energy lower than two electrons of opposite spin. In the case of 8 electrons in an orbital, the electrons pair up in opposite spins. The reason for 2, then 8, then 18 electrons in filled shells is the following (I was waiting for someone else to get started on this point), is the following.

In an atom of the variety, is the angular momentum, is the spin and is the total angular momentum Now , so for an atom , and is less than in general, so for ,, . Now there are angular momentum states, this is the basis behind the number if states in a closed shell.

Okay, now I'm confused.

 

[ZapperZ]

(you guys are making me reach way, way back into my atomic physics coursework days...)

Yeah, but why does the 4s gets filled up first before the 3d? <runs and hides> :)

Zz.

 

[Dr Transport]

don't remember, i said i had to reach way back into my atomic physics courses... if memory serves me correctly, the 4s state has a lower energy than a 3d.

 

[ZapperZ]

don't remember, i said i had to reach way back into my atomic physics courses... if memory serves me correctly, the 4s state has a lower energy than a 3d.

Of course it does! That's why it gets filled up first. But do you remember why? It isn't obvious since one would think the shell with n=3 should be filled up first before the n=4 shell.

<Hums the Jeopardy tune>

Zz.

 

[Dr Transport]

I'm an old guy, been outta school way too long, enlighten us o' wise one...

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm an old guy, been outta school way too long, enlighten us o' wise one...

Oh puhleeze! I'm older than dirt, so that's no excuse! :)

Remember that as you go up in orbital angular momentum, you're trying to squeeze in more and more electrons within the same orbital. Inevitably, the coulombic repulsion from other electrons within the same orbital can no longer be neglected, especially when you get to the d-orbital and higher. This extra coulombic repulsion term causes a "shielding" of the electrostatic potential from the nucleus.

Thus, orbitals like the 4s (which has only 2 electrons scattered in a relatively large spherical shell) would not have as much shielding as the 3d. This would cause the 4s to have a lower energy state than the 3d and so allows the 4s orbital to be filled first.

Now, if ONLY it is THIS simple. There are always exception with the 4s and 3d. You will find, if you go through the periodic table, after the 4s is filled with 2 electrons, as you are filling the 3d, the 4s alternates between 4s2 to 4s1 and back to 4s2. This is because at some point, the Hund's rule allows for a certain configuration of electrons to be more favorable than others, either due to spin-orbit coupling, etc, etc. That's why, when you look at the transition elements, it can sometime be confusing what should be filled next.

Zz.

 

[balkan]

Unfortunately, short of being a psychic, one doesn't know that. It is compounded by the fact that the original question is rather terse, and no references or sources were cited to where this "eight electrons" rule was found.

In fact, the ONLY atom that would want "eight electrons" in its valence shell is an atom with eight protons! This is only one particular atom. [Remember, the question asked about ATOMS, not molecules, not atoms in a solid state configuration, etc... or am I being "picky" again?] So there isn't even any notion of generalities here.

no.. an atom with 8 protons wouldn't have 8 valence electrons...it would have six...

 

[Dual Op Amp]

I agree with Balkan, the first orbital must be filled with only two electrons. Then, the final shell is filled with six electrons. The atom will try to fill the final orbit with eight electrons, even if it makes it an ion. For some reason, eight electrons causes a very stable atom.

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree with Balkan, the first orbital must be filled with only two electrons. Then, the final shell is filled with six electrons. The atom will try to fill the final orbit with eight electrons, even if it makes it an ion. For some reason, eight electrons causes a very stable atom.

Oy vey!

If you agree with Balkan, then the valence shell is 6 electrons, which is the filling of the p orbital. This clearly contradicts your illusion of all atoms wanting 8 valence electrons. Your assertion that the atom will try to fill the "final orbit" (??) with EIGHT (count 'em) electrons, "even if it makes an ion" is ridiculous. What "orbit" is this, since the NEXT orbital is the d-shell?Show me where you can easily find an ion with -8e.

Zz.

 

[Dual Op Amp]

Well, first thing I still don't understand this, that's why I'm asking. I'm talking about the covelent bonding rule. For example the molecule of oxygen shares a double bond with another oxygen atom (O2). The oxygen atom has six valence electrons, and seeks to have eight. The atoms share two electrons, and for a brief moment one of them own all eight valence electrons. This is because one oxygen atom donates an electron, and so does the other. The two electrons orbit around the two atoms. Okay, so the oxygen has six, donates one, and now has five.
When the two electrons orbit around it, it has seven valence electrons. That's not suitable. There's where the double bond come's in. Actually, each oxygen atom donates two valence electrons. So, it now has four valence electrons. The four valence electrons orbit the oxygen atoms. For a very brief moment one atom has it's eight valence electrons. This is proven in every almost every molecule. Water, methane, ozone, oxygen. If you calculate the valence electrons, it always adds to eight.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, first thing I still don't understand this, that's why I'm asking. I'm talking about the covelent bonding rule. For example the molecule of oxygen shares a double bond with another oxygen atom (O2). The oxygen atom has six valence electrons, and seeks to have eight. The atoms share two electrons, and for a brief moment one of them own all eight valence electrons. This is because one oxygen atom donates an electron, and so does the other. The two electrons orbit around the two atoms. Okay, so the oxygen has six, donates one, and now has five.
When the two electrons orbit around it, it has seven valence electrons. That's not suitable. There's where the double bond come's in. Actually, each oxygen atom donates two valence electrons. So, it now has four valence electrons. The four valence electrons orbit the oxygen atoms. For a very brief moment one atom has it's eight valence electrons. This is proven in every almost every molecule. Water, methane, ozone, oxygen. If you calculate the valence electrons, it always adds to eight.

Two things: (i) you're confusing what you see in CERTAIN, LIMITED instance as being the general rule; (ii) you already are contradicting yourself with your own example.

Look at water molecule, for instance. While you are busy occupying your attention with what is going on with the "oxygen" part of the molecule, why don't you take a look at what is going on with the "H" part. Each of the hydrogen atom within the molecule only share a total of TWO electrons with the O atom - one electron that it originally had, and one electron from the O atom. This is a total of <gasp> TWO valence electrons for each H atom in the water molecule. So where is your "8 valence electron" rule here? And I hate to repeat my earlier example of H2 molecule, etc., since obviously that example was completely ignored.

I still want to know where is this -8e ions that are so stable.

Zz.

 

[Dual Op Amp]

Okay, first thing there is a difference between arguing and fighting. Fighting is being angry at one other, and rudely saying or doing something in order of getting rid of anger. Arguing is discussing a topic, in order to find an answer.
I'd hate to be more mature than you, since I'm <gasp> only sixteen. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude to my elders, but you, a fourty-two year old, instigated this. Now, I am sorry that I didn't adress hydrogen for you. Hydrogen is an exception to this rule, because it can only donate one electron, but if you notice, every atom that has more than two electrons fills up the lowest shell with, always, two electrons. Methane, four hydrogen atoms surrounding a carbon atom, has a total of eight electrons. Each hydrogen atom has only two, because it is an exception to the rule. Imagine water, it adds up to eight. Oxygen, with six valence electrons, has two hydrogen atoms bonded to it. This adds up to eight. Type in chemical bond in your search engine, an you'll find out this rule is every where.

 

[ZapperZ]

Oxygen, with six valence electrons, has two hydrogen atoms bonded to it. This adds up to eight. Type in chemical bond in your search engine, an you'll find out this rule is every where.

EVERYWHERE??!

Here are some COMMON IONS that do not form nor want the Noble Gas "8-valence electron" structure:

Fe3+ [Ar]3d5
Cu2+ [Ar]3d9
Zn2+ [Ar]3d10
Ag+ [Kr]4d10
Pb2+ [Xe]4f14 5d10 6s2

A compound form with these do not have 8 valence electrons. Try it! Look at copper-oxide, for example! A lot of the transition metals (when you have the d-orbitals as part of the valence band) certainly do not form molecules and compounds with 8 valence electrons.

For some odd reason, the "examples" you seem to be focusing on, or maybe these are the only ones you were exposed to, seems to be only the ones having 2s 2p/3s 3p-type as the "valence" band (count this - this is EIGHT electrons total). If you look closely, only a limited range of element in the periodic table would want to either gain electrons or loose electrons to gain the equivalent noble gas structure. Once you get into elements with the 3d orbitals (the transition metals), your 8-electron rule is no longer valid! You could have gotten that from my earlier question regarding why the 4s orbital gets filled up first ahead of the 3d.

.. and please don't tell me I'm "fighting" after I spent all this time trying to explain why, and show you examples where, your 8-electron rule isn't as "everywhere" as you thought!

Zz.

Edit: additional info. Why I even bother with this, I don't know. But just to prove that I'm not making this up as I go along, here's a reference:

http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/notes/Bonding/Ionic/Bond02.htm

Look at the bottom of the page where there are examples using exactly the transition metals, where the octet rule fails!

 

[balkan]

Oy vey!

If you agree with Balkan, then the valence shell is 6 electrons, which is the filling of the p orbital. This clearly contradicts your illusion of all atoms wanting 8 valence electrons. Your assertion that the atom will try to fill the "final orbit" (??) with EIGHT (count 'em) electrons, "even if it makes an ion" is ridiculous. What "orbit" is this, since the NEXT orbital is the d-shell?Show me where you can easily find an ion with -8e.

Zz.

i think you must excuse our friend here and stop tripping so much
i agree wholehearted with you personally, but i think he's talking about the bonding processes that leads to a lower energy level... like when two hydrogen atoms combine, or two oxygen atoms combine, obtaining a lower energy level by getting a partially shared amount of electrons which (almost) equivalents to the noble states...

am i right, Dual Op Amp?
cause in that case, it has to do with quantum mechanics, and that'll come later if you keep studying physics... it involves a whole lot of theory and will also reveal that it's really not even the case, it's just a convenient way to predict bonding... cause in a molecule, electrons will find them heavily subjected to the pauli principle and hunds rule, and everything goes sha'bang... just accept is as a convenient "rule" and learn the theory later...