How Are Electrons Distributed Among Px, Py, and Pz Orbitals in Carbon?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distribution of electrons in the p orbitals of carbon, specifically how the two electrons in the 2p subshell are allocated among the px, py, and pz orbitals. It is noted that these orbitals have the same energy level, leading to questions about any rules governing electron distribution. The concept of pairing energy is introduced, highlighting the additional energy required to unpair electrons, which allows them to occupy different suborbitals. The conversation suggests that while the distribution may vary among elements, the fundamental principles of orbital energy and electron pairing apply universally. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping electron configuration in carbon and similar elements.
zachnorious
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hello I didn't get something about the AO.

i.e the electron configuration of C is 1s² 2s² 2p² . So we know that at the 2nd shell this has 4 electrons, 2 in s orbital + 2 in the p, right?
How do we find out how the 2 electrons of p are spread in the px, py, pz?

Thank you,
Panos
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I mean since px,py,pz have the same energy is there any other rule that tell us how many electrons are in each p (px,py,pz) or is this different from element to element and each one has a characteristic px,py,pz for no specific reason?
 
Last edited:
Those suborbitals are of equal energy (x,y,z). Name them any way you want. They are all identical except that they are mutually orthogonal (in this case). Have you heard of pairing energy. How much extra energy does it take to unpair the electrons thereby allowing them to occupy different suborbitals?
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top