Science is gathering data and trying to make sense of
it. Just like detectives piecing
together clues from a murder mystery, scientists take small hints about a world
we cannot see and stitch a story that encompasses all the evidence we’ve
gathered. Our stories are models, which
are different than facts. The motive for
murder is a model pulled together along with admissible evidence by detectives
and tested in court. The truth will
never be known 100%, but the most probable way to explain what the police do
know happened for sure becomes the working model for the lawyers. Similarly, scientific models are pulled
together by experimental evidence and tested in other experiments and in
peer-reviewed work.
Let’s
look at an example of how a model is built.
Facts: Amy spent her day at the park, then had a dinner of steak and
mushrooms. Following her dinner, she
developed hives. She would like a model to explain what
caused the hives. Experiments: The next week after her
hives were gone, she went back to the park.
That night, she didn’t have any hives.
The next day, she ate a dinner of steak.
No hives. Finally, she ate a
dinner of mushrooms and that night developed hives. Experimental Model: All of her experimental evidence suggests
that she is allergic to mushrooms. At
this point, it is not proven that Amy is allergic to mushrooms, but it takes the experimental evidence and fits it with the known facts, thus creating a good
working model for her: if she doesn’t want hives, then she should not eat
mushrooms. The model might be further
amended as she gathers more evidence.
For instance, she might find out that only raw mushrooms give her hives
while cooked mushrooms do not. More
evidence has refined her model. This is
very similar to how scientific models are created, reviewed, and updated.
Models
have been developed to explain what an atom looks like, how atoms behave, how
atoms form bonds (actually, two models exist for this – some molecules are easily explained
by one model and other molecules are easily explained by the other model;
strange) and basically everything that happens at the level of atoms,
molecules, cells, organs, etc.
Our topic today deals with
molecules and started with an observation about a special group of atoms. If you look at the periodic table, the
furthest right column is called the inert gases or the noble gases (Figure 66.1).
Scientists labeled them as such after they discovered that, no matter
how they tried, these gases simply would not form molecules with anything
else. Carbon, oxygen and nitrogen
readily jumped to form new molecules like carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2)
or diatomic nitrogen (N2), but helium, neon and argon couldn’t have
been less interested. They wanted to
stay as neon (Ne), argon (Ar) and helium (He) only. Why?
Most people know that atoms are
small nuclei comprised of neutrons and protons with electrons whirling
around. The
sharing of electrons is also what causes two atoms to form a bond. (I touched on this in my post What Does Water Look Like?) Scientists needed a way
to explain how these electrons are arranged and came up with a good working
model, which I will explain very briefly here.
Think
of a school with two playgrounds. The
first playground is very close to the school building while the second one is a
bit further away. The first graders may
only play on the close playground. The
fifth graders can play on either playground, but they mostly choose the further
away one because what respectable fifth grader hangs out with six year olds?
Okay,
keep this in mind when we talk about electrons.
Let’s say an atom has six electrons.
Two of these six are like the first graders; they have to stay closest
to the school building (nucleus). The
remaining four electrons have their choice of hanging close to the nucleus or
being further away; most will be found further away.
The two
electrons that must stay close to the nucleus are not involved in bonding with
other atoms. They are simply too close
to the nucleus and are not interested.
It is the remaining four, which are predominantly found furthest away
from the nucleus, that are involved in bonding.
Let’s call the electrons that are predominantly found furthest away the
valence electrons. An atom has room for
eight valence electrons. This
particular atom only has four. It would
really really rather have eight. How can our atom get four more electrons? Why, by sharing electrons with other atoms!
Check
out Figure 66.2 and the water molecule I
showed you in the What Does Water Look Like? post. Each atom in a molecule or the neon alone has eight electrons around it. The carbon or oxygen atoms alone have less than eight so they form a molecule such that, after sharing, each atom then has eight.
After
investigating the electron counts in many different molecules and looking at
the electron counts in the noble gases, scientists developed a model for why
atoms form molecules. It is summed up
nicely as “Everyone wants to be noble.”
The inert gases have eight valence electrons already. Atoms that do not have eight valence
electrons form bonds (share electrons) with other atoms such that, once the
sharing occurs, their valence shells will have eight electrons. Everyone wants to have eight electrons. The noble gases already have eight electrons so it is said that all other atoms want to achieve eight electrons to be like the noble gases. Everyone wants to be noble.
* - Okay, one little thought: the water molecule in What Does Water Look Like? clearly shows that hydrogen only has two electrons around
it. Why doesn’t it have eight? Well, because scientists realized that
hydrogen and helium were different than every other atom. Instead of wanting eight electrons, both of
them are fine with two. Every other atom
follows the octet rule (I want eight electrons!); hydrogen and helium follow
the doublet rule (two is cool).
There
are at least eight more posts I could write about electron configurations to
fully explain what valence electrons truly are, where they hang out, what an
orbital is, how orbitals change in an atom versus a molecule, etc. However, the sentiment of this post remains
true. Rest assured, so much more could
be said on this topic!
REFERENCES
Zumdahl, Steven S. “Chemical Principles, 4th
Edition” (2002) Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
No comments:
Post a Comment