It's Easier To Desintegrate An Atom Than A Paradigm?
464577
A group of scientist placed five monkeys in a cage, in the centre of the cage they put stairs and, on it a cluster of bananas.\nWhen a monkey went up the stairs to grab the bananas, the scientists launched cold water in the ones that were in the soil. After certain time, when a monkey went up the stairs he would be beaten by the other monkeys.\nAfter sometime, no monkey tried to went up the stairs, despite the temptation for the bananas.\nThen the scientists substituted one of the 5 monkeys.\nThe first thing he did was go up the stairs, but he was quickly removed by the others that immediately start to beat him.\nAfter some beatings, he quit trying to go up the stairs.\nA second one was replaced and the same story occurred, having the first substitute participated, with enthusiasm, in the beating of the novice.\nOne third was substituted and the same fact happened.\nOne fourth and then the Last of the veterans was substituted.\nSo the scientists were now with a group of 5 monkeys that without ever having taken a cold bath, continued to beat the one that tried to go to the bananas.\nIf it was possible to ask to the monkeys why they beaten the one that tried to get up the stairs, the answer would probably be: "I don't know. Things were always like this around here..."\nSo sometimes we should ask ourselves why we do some things without thinking!\n\n" It is easier to disintegrate an atom than a prejudice!"\n(Albert Einstein)
895113
This is true in isolated atoms.\n\nIf we put them into the electric fields generated by nearby atoms, especially those of water of crystallisation, the energy levels can change and rearrange the electron orbitals.\n\nTo explain this to our satisfaction would mean solving the equations and getting the answers.  Unfortunately this is known as a many bodied problem and only the simplest of them can be solved.\n\nTake heart in the fact that the energy levels are so close together that we can glibly announce the fact and move on quickly to the next topic!
620171
It is in thoery possible to convert all of the elemental particles into energy and transport that energy to a remote location. The energy could then in theory be reasembeled into particles. However in quantum mechanics there is the priciple of uncertainty. Both the position and momentum of any particle cannot be known with arbitrary certainty. This is not a result of precision measurement more that the particle itself cannot know. So what you put together at the other end will not be the same.
842873
the simple answer to your question is just putting unidirectional electrons in the p-orbital. but a more complicated way of how the aufbau principle is disregarded is when there is hybridization of the orbitals together. you get s orbitals and p orbitals fuzing to create sp, sp2 and sp3 orbitals. but dealing with those are only needed when knowing the actual 3-D shape of the molecule.
16264
The Bohr model is simply an easier model of the atom. Sure it has been proven that electrons are really a probability cloud centered around the nucleus, but try explaining that to a 6th grader. \n\nYour question could also be asked of Newtonian physics. Why do we teach it when Mr. Einstein's theory of relativity has proven it wrong? \n\nThe answer to that question and yours is basically...it's good enough :-P
980772
A negative ion will be larger than the atom; a positive ion will be smaller than the atom.
408385
yep, basically it was by chance.  there is no advantage to having the L over the D configuration.  It an be inferred that originally amino acids occurred as racemic mixtures and some life forms used D while others used L. And by chance through evolution the L-configuration species survived.
490979
less elements, so less complicated maths.  \n\nYou get a less accurate result, which I don't consider an advantage.
261105
Better than what?\n\n\nHere's a description of the result:\n\nEach successive "shell" has the capacity to store one more group of paired electrons in a new kind of orbital.\n\nPrincipal quantum number 1:\n1 s-orbital\n- will hold one pair.\n\nPrincipal quantum number 2: \n1 s-orbital\n- will hold one pair.\n3 p-orbitals\n- will hold 3 pairs.\n\nPrincipal quantum number 3: \n1 s-orbital\n- will hold one pair.\n3 p-orbitals\n- will hold 3 pairs.\n5 d-orbitals\n- can hold 5 pairs, but due to "crowding" wait until the 4th S orbital is filled. Are available to help form double bonds for elements like P, S and Cl though.\n\nFor principal quantum number 4 there is the addition of 7 f-orbitals, which insert themselves after the first d-orbital of the next higher principal quantum number is filled.\n\nAs a result, there are lots of rare metals which form 3+ ions...\n\n\nNow why is this so?\n\nThere is no easy way to explain this with classical mechanic and electrostatic. It has to do with standing waves, elimination by interference, and the wave/matter duality. In short, quantum mechanics. If you don't want to start with that topic, just accept that this is how it works...
329767
You might be looking for information on alchemy, not chemistry.  The two fields of study are very seperate these days.  Of course, modern scientits could turn lead into gold by nuclear fusion, or turn heavier elements into gold by fission- neither process seems practical.
178437
The ion has one ore more surplus electrons to fill the outer shell to 8 of them.\nElectrons repell each other, so they take a little bit more space.\nSo the negative ion is a bit bigger than the atom.
371324
Negatively charged ion has one/some extra electrons than the corresponding neutral atom. so, deu to repulsion they stay more apart.\n\nthat is what i think is the reason why -ve ions have greater radious than neutral atom.
1105737
even though it would seem that 3d orbital is lower in energy it is actually higher in energy.  That is why the 4s is filled first.
449308
Depends how detailed you go, they have paired atoms where you do one thing to one and it happens to the other, if things were the same down to this level maybe they'd be joined in the same way. Just a thought.
28508
the more entropy u have in the molecule the bigger chance for entropy at a larger scale.\nthat is not always the case, there r exceptions, but on average is true :-)
538049
Yes.  In fact protons even from two different elements are indistinguishable.  This is a fundamental property that is quite interesting, and it results in some very odd behavior.
59635
Elements with octet configuration are more stable because the last layer of electrons is complete, so it doesn't have empty spaces to be filled by other elements (not easily). It is not impossible, but hard and not likely to happen under normal conditions. Under special circumstances, I suppose they do mix, like your case with Xenon.