Relationship between valence electrons and electron configuration

AI Thread Summary
Atoms tend to achieve stability through a full outer electron shell, commonly represented by the octet rule, which states that atoms are most stable with eight valence electrons. This stability is linked to the electron configurations of noble gases, where elements like neon have completely filled p orbitals. The discussion raises questions about why certain groups, such as alkali earth metals, are not considered stable despite having filled s orbitals. It suggests that electronegativity plays a role in stability, questioning why elements like boron and carbon do not simply lose electrons to achieve a filled s orbital. The conversation highlights that while empirical data supports the preference for eight valence electrons, not all atoms adhere strictly to this rule, indicating that stability can also arise from other configurations. The underlying forces influencing electron arrangement and stability remain a key point of inquiry.
Rulesby
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Why is it that atoms must have 8 valence electrons in order to be stable?

Aren't electrons most stable when the orbital is completely filled? Helium's electron configuration is 1s^2, Neon's is 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6, etc. All the noble gases, except for helium, have the p orbital filled.

I'm wondering why the p orbital has to be filled in order for the configuration to be stable. Why, for example, aren't the alkali Earth metals stable since they all fill the 2s orbital.

Is it because the electronegativity is too weak? If so, why doesn't boron or carbon tend to form give only 1 electron in boron's case or 2 electrons in carbon's case in order to empty the p orbital and be satisfied with a filled 2s orbital? Surely they have enough electronegativity to hold on to the electrons in the 2s orbital.

Of course, empirical data can tell you that the atom likes to have 8 valence electrons, but my idea of the electron configurations doesn't reflect that, so I probably have the wrong idea.

So what forces are responsible for influencing an atom to have 8 valence electrons, and how does the electron configuration agree with this?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Rulesby said:
Why is it that atoms must have 8 valence electrons in order to be stable?

Aren't electrons most stable when the orbital is completely filled? Helium's electron configuration is 1s^2, Neon's is 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6, etc. All the noble gases, except for helium, have the p orbital filled.

I'm wondering why the p orbital has to be filled in order for the configuration to be stable. Why, for example, aren't the alkali Earth metals stable since they all fill the 2s orbital.

Is it because the electronegativity is too weak? If so, why doesn't boron or carbon tend to form give only 1 electron in boron's case or 2 electrons in carbon's case in order to empty the p orbital and be satisfied with a filled 2s orbital? Surely they have enough electronegativity to hold on to the electrons in the 2s orbital.

Of course, empirical data can tell you that the atom likes to have 8 valence electrons, but my idea of the electron configurations doesn't reflect that, so I probably have the wrong idea.

So what forces are responsible for influencing an atom to have 8 valence electrons, and how does the electron configuration agree with this?

Not all atoms must have 8 valence electrons in order to be stable.
 
Engineers slash iridium use in electrolyzer catalyst by 80%, boosting path to affordable green hydrogen https://news.rice.edu/news/2025/engineers-slash-iridium-use-electrolyzer-catalyst-80-boosting-path-affordable-green Ruthenium is also fairly expensive (a year ago it was about $490/ troy oz, but has nearly doubled in price over the past year, now about $910/ troy oz). I tracks prices of Pt, Pd, Ru, Ir and Ru. Of the 5 metals, rhodium (Rh) is the most expensive. A year ago, Rh and Ir...

Similar threads

Back
Top