Why do we draw unbonded electrons in pairs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leoragon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrons
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of lone pairs in Lewis dot structures, questioning why unbonded electrons are typically drawn in pairs despite the potential for electron repulsion. Participants explore the implications of electron pairing, the validity of alternative drawings, and the conventions used in chemical notation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that electrons tend to pair up due to spin coupling within their orbitals, which may explain the convention of drawing them as pairs.
  • Others argue that the diagrams are merely notational and do not accurately represent the distribution of electrons in a molecule.
  • A participant questions whether all proposed drawings are valid and if they can be used interchangeably.
  • One participant explains that for elements in the first period, there are limitations on the number of available valence orbitals, which influences how electrons are paired.
  • Another participant indicates that while alternative drawings can be made, they may not adhere to established conventions and could lead to misunderstandings.
  • There is a suggestion that there is no single accurate notation, as different notations serve different purposes depending on what is being emphasized.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of alternative drawings and the reasons behind the convention of pairing electrons. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best representation of lone pairs and the implications of electron pairing.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of orbitals and the varying interpretations of electron pairing in different contexts. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical or conceptual complexities involved in electron configurations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to high school students learning about Lewis dot structures, educators seeking to understand student misconceptions, and individuals exploring the conventions of chemical notation.

Leoragon
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
A little background: I'm only a high school student with some knowledge on Lewis dot structures. And I don't know much about the s orbitals or p orbitals or whatnot.

Why are there lone pairs? Shouldn't the electrons repel each other? Why do we draw them as pairs?

For example: carbon dioxide is drawn like this
CO222.png

Why don't we draw it like
CO22.png

or
CO2.png


or sulfur dioxide
SO2.png

Why not this?
SO22.png


Are the drawings just arbitrary and the original used for simplicity's sake?
Can all these drawings work?
 
Last edited:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Electrons couple spin-spin inside their orbitals - thus: they tend to pair up. Inside a molecule, electrons are not static charges so all the diagrams are incorrect. However, if you work out the relative frces in the different configurations you drew, you'll find your drawings have the higher potential energy.

It's only a notation - not an accurate representation of the distribution of electrons in the molecule.
 
Simon Bridge said:
Electrons couple spin-spin inside their orbitals - thus: they tend to pair up. Inside a molecule, electrons are not static charges so all the diagrams are incorrect. However, if you work out the relative frces in the different configurations you drew, you'll find your drawings have the higher potential energy.

It's only a notation - not an accurate representation of the distribution of electrons in the molecule.
I don't quite understand. I read http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physica...Quantum_Number_.26_(s.2C_p.2C_d.2C_f)_Orbital and to my understanding a pair of opposite spin electrons can occupy an orientation of an orbital? Is that why we say they are pairs?
So all those drawings are correct? I can draw that way if I wanted to?
Also, what notation would be an accurate representation?
 
Leoragon said:
A little background: I'm only a high school student with some knowledge on Lewis dot structures. And I don't know much about the s orbitals or p orbitals or whatnot.

Why are there lone pairs? Shouldn't the electrons repel each other? Why do we draw them as pairs?

For example: carbon dioxide is drawn like this
View attachment 82251
Why don't we draw it like
View attachment 82252
or
View attachment 82253

or sulfur dioxide
View attachment 82255
Why not this?
View attachment 82256

Are the drawings just arbitrary and the original used for simplicity's sake?
Can all these drawings work?
you can not do that,it is wrong.
 
At least for elements from the first period (Na - Ne), there are only four valence orbitals available 1 s and 3 p type orbitals. Taking oxygen in CO2 as an example, you can form two bonding orbitals with C and two anti-bonding orbitals, which are too high to be occupied. The bonding orbitals are filled with two electrons from C and two electrons from O. This leaves 4 electrons on O which have to be distributed among 2 remaining orbitals. As each orbital may contain at most 2 electrons with anti-parallel spin ("pairs"), the only possibility is to have two pairs at O while the structures you did draw aren't possible.
 
I don't quite understand. I read [chemwiki] and to my understanding a pair of opposite spin electrons can occupy an orientation of an orbital? Is that why we say they are pairs?
Yes. One spin up and one spin down.
This should hep you make sense of the convention in pairing up the dots. An unpaired dot would indicate would indicate an electron all by itself in the "orbital" - two unpaired dots would indicate that there are two different orbitals with only one electron in them.

So all those drawings are correct? I can draw that way if I wanted to?
Which way? You can draw them the way you did if you want to, and you don't care about other people being able to understand you, but the configuration is not as useful and it is not correct according to established conventions. Best to stick to the conventions.

Also, what notation would be an accurate representation?
There is no 100% accurate notation, it's a notation. It's just a way of keeping notes about what is important to you. When other things are important, you use a different notation. It's standardized because other people want to be able to read your notes.

As you advance in your studies you will probably get to learn more about the quantum mechanics behind these conventions and notations, and it will make more sense.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
30K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K