If the electron does not take a 2 dimentional orbit then it must take a 3 dimentional orbit what do you think?
916453
Personally, I think electrons exist in more than 3 dimensions.  They flash in and out of our three dimensional existence as matter quite often.  I think that if we had the necessary means of sensing all of the universe's dimensions, we would see matter and energy as "obviously" the same thing instead of "conceptually" the same thing.
272390
1 electron as its already 1s1 n its needs 1 more to to get to 1s2 which is normal valency of s orbital
17189
there is no "forth" dimention, unless you mean back and forth, then it would just be forward :p\n\nanyway, the "fourth" dimention just refers to time.  There are 3 spacial dementions, and the 4th is time
65031
First, the electrons aren't "spinning" around the nucleus, they have a velocity but the wave function that describes a stationary orbit doesn't evolve in time (except superficially), so it's very misleading to say that they're "spinning" around anything. \n \nSecond, the electrons ARE attracted to the nucleus.  If you want to have some fun, ask a your teacher why electrons don't fall into the nucleus.  You can be sure that any answer he/she gives you is wrong.  The best explination as to why electrons don't fall into the nucleus is extraordinarily hard to believe.  It has NOTHING to do with the same thing keeping earth in orbit.  Research the "heisenberg uncertainty principle" if you're interested.  \n\nThe electrons dont go far from eachother because they're all attracted to the nucleus.  They do spread out though, as the number of electrons grows.
787388
Basically what this is referring to is the ionization of the atoms you have listed. this occurs when there is a shift in the distribution of the electron in the various bands 'orbiting' the nucleus of the atom, or a proton has been added to the nucleus. \n\nWhat the statement seems to be refering to is the creation of a positive ion (cation). If this is to occur it needs a shift in the distribution of the electrons in the shells. To move an electron from one band to another, or to excite one enough to be lost fully from orbit you will need a level of energy. \n\nIn the cases stated, I would say that 3.1eV is the minimum energy required to create a transition of an electron between the bands or to lose an electron and so create the ion. \n\nHope that helps.
1161312
To the best of my knowledge.The point is a well defined mark. It can be located anywhere in space and its position can be specified excatly wrt some co ordinate system. So it is not undefined.\nHowever the other 2 elements have one thing in common and that is we cannot specify the dimensions of any of them. In other words each of them can be extended to infinite dimensions.
153826
There are 3 orbitals: px, py, and pz. Each of the orbitals can take 2 electrons.\n\nIf you take an X-Y-z plot and draw 3 figure eights with each of three dimensions, you'll get the shape of the p orbital.\n\nThe p orbital is also symmetrical (gerade), so electrons in complex don't easily go from a p orbital to a d orbital (which is ungerade) according to LaPorte rules.
231705
Electrons are not little hard balls circling the nucleus of the atom.  They are best thought of as a cloud (a field of probability).  Think of your question as asking “why does the atmosphere not collapse to the earth?”  This is close.  See the sites below for more details:
731498
The orbitals themselves have no real "shape".  The graphical representations you are looking at are actually density maps of where an electron in that orbital is most likely to be found.\n\nIf you take a look at an "f" orbital, for example, you'll see that the "shape" is not contiguous.  It looks like a hourglass going through a donut.  Electrons being the happy things they are can appear the various different permitted energy levels around a nucleus and can even "tunnel" outside the atom itself.  Just remember when you're looking at those pictures that you're not really looking at shapes but density graphs of where an electron in that type of orbital can most probably be found.
1132990
with the help of atomic number & electronic configuration. the electronic configuration of the outermost orbit gives you no. of valance electrons
894776
According to quantum mechinics, an electron is not confined to an orbit as we know for satellites, it has a 'shell' of probability where it is most likely to be found. It also has the small but finite chance of being found inside the nucleus of the atom, so the anwer is 0.
1138753
This is a natural question if you think in terms of classical physics.  In fact, it's an even bigger problem than at first glance because, in classical physics, a charged object which accelerates will radiate energy.  So, in classical physics, all electrons would be expected to spiral in to the nucleus.  This puzzle cannot be addressed without quantum mechanics.\n\nHere's a very simple explanation.  It's not mathematically exact, but it carries the important concepts, and does give an answer fairly close to the mathematically correct one.\n\nFor simplicity, we'll consider hydrogen.  A single proton, no neutrons, and one electron.  There are no competing electrons to push each other apart, it really looks as if the best situation is for the electron to be squeezed right into the proton.\n\nRecall that in quantum mechanics, particles behave like waves.  Let's look at the electron that way.  What's the wavelength of this electron wave?  Well, we can't really say exactly, but a good approximation would be the wavelength is about the same as the width of the space in which you constrain the electron.  Put the electron in a large space, and it has a large wavelength.  Put it in a tiny space, and its wavelength is much smaller.  Ah, but remember, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency, and the higher the frequency, the higher the energy.\n\nNow, you have two competing effects.  If the electron goes in very close to the proton, and stays there, then it will be lowering its electrostatic energy.  But to do that, it has to confine itself to an extremely small volume, which will give it a very high "wavelength energy".  It seems natural that there's a middle point somewhere such that if the electron got closer to the proton, its wavelength energy would increase faster than its electrostatic energy would decrease.  This sets a minimum distance for the electron from the proton.  It actually needs more energy to get closer to the proton after that.  So, the place the electron winds up is actually its lowest energy state, it's stable there, and doesn't require any injection of energy to maintain this position.\n\nAs I said, this is very non-mathematical, but it gives you an idea of what's happening in the quantum mechanics which explain the effect.
979155
alright. Electron configurations. I had the exact same problem three weeks ago. I was SO confused. But i got it in the end.\n\nLet me explain.\nThere are two types of electron configurations. One is the simple electron shell configuration. Let's say 2-8-16 and the other is called spdf notation like 1s2 2s2(i can' t type the two after the s like an exponent so bear with me)\n\nNow the first one is simple. Shell notation. An atoms outer shells are divided into shells that each have a maximum limit for the number of electrons that they can contain. the first can hold 2, the second 8 and so on. They all follow a rule. It is always 2 time the shell number squared. lets say level 1. Square it. You get 1. Multiply it by 2. You get 2. Therefore 2 is the maximum # that level one can hold. You said 15. So fill each level so that each contains the max. It would be 2-8-5. (The last one is five so that the all ad up to 15). Got it?\n\nNext, we have spdf notation. This takes a lot of time to explain so i'll just give you a site to go to. \n\nhttp://www.fordhamprep.org/gcurran/sho/sho/lessons/lesson36.htm\n\nGood luck!
692204
Just a minor nitpick on what others have said.  Electricity can also be the motion of holes, which can be thought of as the absense of an electron.  But generally it is the motion of electrons.
12647
What might cause some confusion is that the electron resides in an "electron shell", and some theorize that the electron can be at any position in that shell at any time.\nMost do consider the electron a particle, but it depends on how you define the behavior.
13297
Atoms have a nucleus ( composed of protons and neutrons) and a cloud of electrons. The number of the different components varies between different elements.\n\nElectrons can only have specific energy levels in an atom - that is the energy is not continious but quantized. This is different from, say, the solar system, because a planet could theoretically be in any orbit. But we know from quantum mechanics (and many, many experiments) that electons can only occupy certain "orbits."\n\nSometimes an electron can be bumped into a higher orbit (the higher orbits have less energy, because they are not as tightly bound) or kicked out of the atom altogether. If a second electron moves into the spot it will release energy as it falls into that level.\n\nHydrogen is the easiest element to study. The nucleus is a single proton, and it can have only one electron. The different energy levels can be illustrated like this:\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html#c2\n(though in reality electrons don't travel on nice orbits)\n\nIf an electron in the second lowest level does a "quantum leap" to the very lowest, it will emit energy - light - at a very specific frequency. In this case 656 nanometers, which is red. If, on the other hand, an electron falls from the 3rd level down to the 1st level the emitted light is blue.\n\nA "spectrum" will show all of these distinct levels, with the brighter ones being the most common. This shows the spectrum of hydrogen with a diagram of the quantum leaps:\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html#c4\n\nIn other atoms it becomes more complex, not every jump is allowed, and in the precense of a magnetic field a "fine structure" is seen in the spectrum, as some of the main lines look double.\n\nThe result of all of this is that each different atom will give a different characteristic spectrum. So, you can use this to identify different elements in anything from crime scene samples to distant galaxies.
472253
Not really.  There is a mass at the center, and smaller things 'orbiting', but the similarities are beaten out by the differences.  Unlike planets, the electrons are all the same mass, and much larger compared to the central mass than planets are to the sun.  Also they do not really orbit all in the same plane in the same way that planets do, some of the orbits are ring- shaped, some are like figure 8's and others are sort a 4-lobed pyramid deal.  Plus they are not really solid objects like planets.  The present thinking, for the past 100 years or so, has the electron's orbit as more like a sort of charged cloud with the actual 'presence' of the electron itself at any one place described by a probability rather than being able to say it has a definite location.\n\nAlso, the forces in play are quite different.  The planets whirl around in the grip of gravity, and it is pretty strong but it is still by far the weakest of the forces that can interact with matter.  The forces that act only upon subatomic particles are very different in nature and far more powerful than gravity.\n\nI'd say the similarities are there, like the similarity between certain small dogs and a cat.  But the differences are fundamental.