Why do we draw unbonded electrons in pairs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leoragon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrons
AI Thread Summary
Lone pairs of electrons are represented as pairs in Lewis dot structures due to the principle of electron pairing, where electrons with opposite spins occupy the same orbital. This pairing is a convention that simplifies the representation of molecular structures, although it does not accurately depict the dynamic nature of electrons within molecules. The discussion highlights that while alternative drawings may be possible, they often do not conform to established conventions, which are designed for clarity and understanding among chemists. The notation used in Lewis structures is not a precise representation of electron distribution but serves as a useful tool for visualizing bonding and lone pairs. As one advances in chemistry, a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics will clarify these conventions further.
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.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top