[quote]Tyrant wrote:
Okay I have a question. I’m having a hard time understanding electron orbitals. I understand how there is a maximum of 2 electrons per orbitals, and there can be multiple orbitals with the same principle energy level. What I don’t understand is how the electrons move, I’ve always thought it was in a spherical motion around the nucleus, yet the book is illustrating that 3 or the 4 orbitals on the same energy level move in seperate nontouching “dumbbell shapred orbitals”
[/quote]
Orbitals and the idea of orbitting is helpful in grasping the idea that electrons surround the nucleus, but misleading in that electrons don’t orbit/move like planets around a star.
The shape of orbitals is just a probability envelope - the chance of finding an electron somewhere within the shape. This does mean that in spherical orbitals there is a chance of the electron being in the nucleus.
You’re probably better off thinking of the orbitals as shaped forcefields that contain the electron within them. You can’t really tell where the electron is at any moment, but you know where it isn’t (outside the orbital).
[quote]Tyrant wrote:
Okay I have a question. I’m having a hard time understanding electron orbitals. I understand how there is a maximum of 2 electrons per orbitals, and there can be multiple orbitals with the same principle energy level. What I don’t understand is how the electrons move, I’ve always thought it was in a spherical motion around the nucleus, yet the book is illustrating that 3 or the 4 orbitals on the same energy level move in seperate nontouching “dumbbell shapred orbitals”
From the looks of this if they continued on that path in an circular motion they would go through the nucleus. This makes no sense, perhaps its because I’m trying to understand something in 3 dimensions looking at a 2d picture.
Bohr models make plenty of sense though…
edit: Okay, another question regarding avagadro’s number and mol’s. I understand that 1mol of any substance is the same as the atomic mass of it, so H20 is 18AMUs so it is 18 grams. And that glucose is 180AMUs and 180grams, but how the hell the hell does that mean they have the same amount of atom’s in it? It makes no sense to me.[/quote]
OK Bohr Model is just that a simplified model. Don’t think of the orbits as being the same as the orbit of a planet around the sun, electrons do not move like that. An individual electron can at any time be literally anywhere in the universe and you cannot ever accurately measure where (I could explain why, but easier if you just believe me). The orbits actually just describe the bounds of the area where it is most likely to be.
I have a BSc in Chemistry specialising in theoretical and physical chemistry, it’s a while ago but shoot me any questions you need help with.
[quote]Petermus wrote:
ok, the first orbital can only hold 2 electrons but the next can 8 electrons max, if it has more than 8 it forms a third orbital which holds the extra…If it has one for example in its third orbital it may give it up to another atom and become an ion. Atoms like to be even… equal electrons and protons. The electrons move erratically in orbit… we only know something like 80% of the time where they are in orbit… they move like crazy.[/quote]
No we literally never know where they are. The more accurately we try to measure their location and energy, the less accurately we can know. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Tyrant wrote:
Okay I have a question. I’m having a hard time understanding electron orbitals. I understand how there is a maximum of 2 electrons per orbitals, and there can be multiple orbitals with the same principle energy level. What I don’t understand is how the electrons move, I’ve always thought it was in a spherical motion around the nucleus, yet the book is illustrating that 3 or the 4 orbitals on the same energy level move in seperate nontouching “dumbbell shapred orbitals”
Orbitals and the idea of orbitting is helpful in grasping the idea that electrons surround the nucleus, but misleading in that electrons don’t orbit/move like planets around a star.
The shape of orbitals is just a probability envelope - the chance of finding an electron somewhere within the shape. This does mean that in spherical orbitals there is a chance of the electron being in the nucleus.
You’re probably better off thinking of the orbitals as shaped forcefields that contain the electron within them. You can’t really tell where the electron is at any moment, but you know where it isn’t (outside the orbital).[/quote]
I actually think that the way we are tought Chemistry at highschool is counterproductive. My first day as an undergrad the lecturer actually said, everything you have been told up until today is a lie, it is a bad approximation, forget it and lets start from scratch.
I remember reading some studies that kids that were tought from the basis of quantum chemistry first actually understood it better.
The Bohr model actually gets in the way of understanding because it is such a familiar concept to us (things orbiting a central mass.) We then find it hard to conceptualise what is really going on because our brains grab back to the familiar concept.
If you’re having trouble connecting with a tutor then one option could be to look at another textbook. It may explain it in a way you understand better or it just might give you that one example that makes you go “Ohhhhh I get.” All college libraries have textbooks on reserve. Go to the librarian and ask if they have a bio text other than the one you have. A chemistry text might be helpful also for understanding orbitals. As a last resort, you can go to a bookstore and look for a Schaum’s Outline for whatever subject you’re studying. They’re not always the greatest but it might help.
For the Chemistry stuff, the first few chapters of John Gribben’s book ‘In Search of Schroedinger´s cat’ are really accessible explanations of the various theories. Great book!
Yeah, the textbook I have is Biological Science, 3rd ed., Scott Freeman. It is quite good, lots of pictures, summary charts, everything flows together, etc.