Electron Configuration for Multivalent electrons.

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on drawing electron configurations for lead (Pb) in its multivalent states, specifically Pb4+ and Pb2+. The user expresses confusion about which electrons to remove when determining ionic charges, questioning whether to prioritize p or s orbitals. It is noted that the traditional shell model oversimplifies electron behavior, as electrons cannot be distinctly categorized by their orbitals. Instead, understanding ionization potential trends for lead can provide a more accurate approach to determining electron removal. The conversation emphasizes the importance of grounding electron configuration discussions in experimental results rather than relying solely on theoretical models.
Yellowcard95
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am trying to draw electron configurations for multivalent electrons for Pb4+ and Pb2+.
The work I have:
(Xe)6s24f145d10 (PB2+)
(Xe)6s04f145d10 (PB4+)

the problem I'm having with multivalent structures is:
I have no idea which electrons to remove when there is an ionic charge
For instance, I don't know whether I should remove p orbital before s etc.

Can someone explain the concept for electron configurations for atoms in d-block
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is this for a class? I ask because there's a difference between the questions "What should I write down to get full credit" and "what is the right way to think about electrons in multi-electron atoms". Strictly speaking, this business of saying that "this electron is a 3p while this other one is a 4s" is wrong. You can't distinguish between electrons in that way, all you can say are things about the total multi-electron wavefunction.

The "shell model" is based on patterns in the ionization potentials backed up by simplistic (Hartree-Fock) calculations that use the orbital approximation to try to give a clear model. If you want to make the most grounded argument, you'll have to look at what the ionization potential trends are for PB to see if they look like you're removing electrons from an "s-orbital" (within the trend you'll see two that are much more similar to each other than to the rest) or from a "p-orbital" (a trend where three look more similar followed by three that look similar to each other but slightly different from the previous three due to the electron pairing energy) etc. Doing it that way,you're still buying into the incorrect picture, but at least you're doing it based on firm experimental results.

For more info, take a look at, say:
Transition Metal Configurations and Limitations of the Orbital Approximation
J. Chem. Ed. Volume 66 Number 6 June 1989 481
Why Teach the Electron Configuration of the Elements as We Do?
J. Chem. Ed. Volume 59 Number 9 September 1982 757
Demystifying Introductory Chemistry Part 1: Electron Configurations from Experiment
J. Chem. Ed. Volume 73 Number 7 July 1996 617
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K