Max # of electrons in an atom whose highest-energy electrons have n=5

AI Thread Summary
The maximum number of electrons in an atom with the highest-energy electrons at n=5 is determined by the subshells available, which include 5s, 5p, 5d, and 5f. Each subshell can hold a specific number of electrons: 2 for s, 6 for p, 10 for d, and 14 for f, totaling 32 electrons for n=5. The discussion also raises questions about whether the atom is in its ground state, which affects electron configuration. The highest atomic number element in the n=5 subshells is relevant for understanding the limits of electron capacity. Ultimately, the maximum number of electrons for n=5 is 32, assuming the atom is in its ground state.
paridiso
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
What is the maximum number of electrons in an atom whose highest-energy electrons have the principal quantum number ?

I tried 54 and 110. Neither was correct.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Probably yes, but is the atom in its ground state?

What are the subshells in the n=5 shell? Which element has the highest atomic number in those subshells?
 
The first sentence I posted is everything given in the problem. I'm assuming it's in a ground state but I'm not sure.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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