Why do atoms want to be stable?












3












$begingroup$


If an oxygen atom has six electrons, then it has an unfilled orbital and the oxygen atom may share electrons from two hydrogen atoms (and form water) in order to become more stable.



But why does oxygen, or any other atom for that manner, favor stability over instability? Why can't the oxygen atom just have six electrons and be done with it?



Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?






thermodynamics electrons atomic-physics equilibrium







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    "Stable" means low energy configuration. The reason for this is that it is much easier (and faster) to lose energy to environment by interaction, than to get energy from it.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    5 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke That's an awful way to treat people simply asking questions, particularly considering that there are a lot of educators who teach chemistry and physics with the intuitive idea of atoms "wanting" to do something (an idea born in a high school classroom in the depths of hell, I imagine). Next time instead of calling someone's question stupid, perhaps give constructive feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Knighton
    4 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke, by "wanting" I think I meant "atom has the tendency to do X, why?" Anthropomorphic language isn't scientific but is oriented to helping people understand concepts. That's why it's used.
    $endgroup$
    – Korvexius
    4 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke many famous educators, fenyman included, use this approach as it gives an intuitive understanding at the start of the education.
    $endgroup$
    – akozi
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke Slight antropomorphic language like objects "wanting to do something", even very abstract notions like functions, is extremely common in scientific literature at every level apart from very formal contexts. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but it is not stupid, it doesn't lead to misconceptions when used carefully, and it's a natural way to describe phenomena.
    $endgroup$
    – Kasper Meerts
    3 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


If an oxygen atom has six electrons, then it has an unfilled orbital and the oxygen atom may share electrons from two hydrogen atoms (and form water) in order to become more stable.



But why does oxygen, or any other atom for that manner, favor stability over instability? Why can't the oxygen atom just have six electrons and be done with it?



Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?






thermodynamics electrons atomic-physics equilibrium







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    "Stable" means low energy configuration. The reason for this is that it is much easier (and faster) to lose energy to environment by interaction, than to get energy from it.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    5 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke That's an awful way to treat people simply asking questions, particularly considering that there are a lot of educators who teach chemistry and physics with the intuitive idea of atoms "wanting" to do something (an idea born in a high school classroom in the depths of hell, I imagine). Next time instead of calling someone's question stupid, perhaps give constructive feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Knighton
    4 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke, by "wanting" I think I meant "atom has the tendency to do X, why?" Anthropomorphic language isn't scientific but is oriented to helping people understand concepts. That's why it's used.
    $endgroup$
    – Korvexius
    4 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke many famous educators, fenyman included, use this approach as it gives an intuitive understanding at the start of the education.
    $endgroup$
    – akozi
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke Slight antropomorphic language like objects "wanting to do something", even very abstract notions like functions, is extremely common in scientific literature at every level apart from very formal contexts. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but it is not stupid, it doesn't lead to misconceptions when used carefully, and it's a natural way to describe phenomena.
    $endgroup$
    – Kasper Meerts
    3 hours ago














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


If an oxygen atom has six electrons, then it has an unfilled orbital and the oxygen atom may share electrons from two hydrogen atoms (and form water) in order to become more stable.



But why does oxygen, or any other atom for that manner, favor stability over instability? Why can't the oxygen atom just have six electrons and be done with it?



Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?






thermodynamics electrons atomic-physics equilibrium







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




If an oxygen atom has six electrons, then it has an unfilled orbital and the oxygen atom may share electrons from two hydrogen atoms (and form water) in order to become more stable.



But why does oxygen, or any other atom for that manner, favor stability over instability? Why can't the oxygen atom just have six electrons and be done with it?



Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?






thermodynamics electrons atomic-physics equilibrium




thermodynamics electrons atomic-physics equilibrium






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









Qmechanic♦

104k121881195




104k121881195










asked 7 hours ago









KorvexiusKorvexius

212




212








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    "Stable" means low energy configuration. The reason for this is that it is much easier (and faster) to lose energy to environment by interaction, than to get energy from it.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    5 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke That's an awful way to treat people simply asking questions, particularly considering that there are a lot of educators who teach chemistry and physics with the intuitive idea of atoms "wanting" to do something (an idea born in a high school classroom in the depths of hell, I imagine). Next time instead of calling someone's question stupid, perhaps give constructive feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Knighton
    4 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke, by "wanting" I think I meant "atom has the tendency to do X, why?" Anthropomorphic language isn't scientific but is oriented to helping people understand concepts. That's why it's used.
    $endgroup$
    – Korvexius
    4 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke many famous educators, fenyman included, use this approach as it gives an intuitive understanding at the start of the education.
    $endgroup$
    – akozi
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke Slight antropomorphic language like objects "wanting to do something", even very abstract notions like functions, is extremely common in scientific literature at every level apart from very formal contexts. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but it is not stupid, it doesn't lead to misconceptions when used carefully, and it's a natural way to describe phenomena.
    $endgroup$
    – Kasper Meerts
    3 hours ago














  • 4




    $begingroup$
    "Stable" means low energy configuration. The reason for this is that it is much easier (and faster) to lose energy to environment by interaction, than to get energy from it.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    5 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke That's an awful way to treat people simply asking questions, particularly considering that there are a lot of educators who teach chemistry and physics with the intuitive idea of atoms "wanting" to do something (an idea born in a high school classroom in the depths of hell, I imagine). Next time instead of calling someone's question stupid, perhaps give constructive feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Knighton
    4 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke, by "wanting" I think I meant "atom has the tendency to do X, why?" Anthropomorphic language isn't scientific but is oriented to helping people understand concepts. That's why it's used.
    $endgroup$
    – Korvexius
    4 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke many famous educators, fenyman included, use this approach as it gives an intuitive understanding at the start of the education.
    $endgroup$
    – akozi
    4 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @ohwilleke Slight antropomorphic language like objects "wanting to do something", even very abstract notions like functions, is extremely common in scientific literature at every level apart from very formal contexts. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but it is not stupid, it doesn't lead to misconceptions when used carefully, and it's a natural way to describe phenomena.
    $endgroup$
    – Kasper Meerts
    3 hours ago








4




4




$begingroup$
"Stable" means low energy configuration. The reason for this is that it is much easier (and faster) to lose energy to environment by interaction, than to get energy from it.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
"Stable" means low energy configuration. The reason for this is that it is much easier (and faster) to lose energy to environment by interaction, than to get energy from it.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
5 hours ago




5




5




$begingroup$
@ohwilleke That's an awful way to treat people simply asking questions, particularly considering that there are a lot of educators who teach chemistry and physics with the intuitive idea of atoms "wanting" to do something (an idea born in a high school classroom in the depths of hell, I imagine). Next time instead of calling someone's question stupid, perhaps give constructive feedback.
$endgroup$
– Bob Knighton
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
@ohwilleke That's an awful way to treat people simply asking questions, particularly considering that there are a lot of educators who teach chemistry and physics with the intuitive idea of atoms "wanting" to do something (an idea born in a high school classroom in the depths of hell, I imagine). Next time instead of calling someone's question stupid, perhaps give constructive feedback.
$endgroup$
– Bob Knighton
4 hours ago




4




4




$begingroup$
@ohwilleke, by "wanting" I think I meant "atom has the tendency to do X, why?" Anthropomorphic language isn't scientific but is oriented to helping people understand concepts. That's why it's used.
$endgroup$
– Korvexius
4 hours ago






$begingroup$
@ohwilleke, by "wanting" I think I meant "atom has the tendency to do X, why?" Anthropomorphic language isn't scientific but is oriented to helping people understand concepts. That's why it's used.
$endgroup$
– Korvexius
4 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
@ohwilleke many famous educators, fenyman included, use this approach as it gives an intuitive understanding at the start of the education.
$endgroup$
– akozi
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
@ohwilleke many famous educators, fenyman included, use this approach as it gives an intuitive understanding at the start of the education.
$endgroup$
– akozi
4 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
@ohwilleke Slight antropomorphic language like objects "wanting to do something", even very abstract notions like functions, is extremely common in scientific literature at every level apart from very formal contexts. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but it is not stupid, it doesn't lead to misconceptions when used carefully, and it's a natural way to describe phenomena.
$endgroup$
– Kasper Meerts
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@ohwilleke Slight antropomorphic language like objects "wanting to do something", even very abstract notions like functions, is extremely common in scientific literature at every level apart from very formal contexts. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but it is not stupid, it doesn't lead to misconceptions when used carefully, and it's a natural way to describe phenomena.
$endgroup$
– Kasper Meerts
3 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

Wanting or favoring are not very good terms in physics. More scientific view on this would be that whenever an oxygen atom comes close to another atom, they interact and provided things are right (such as the number of electrons and their state), the atoms attract and can get closer, while losing part of their initial energy, in the form of radiation or lost electron or transfer some energy to other atom/molecule in a scattering event.



After the bonding energy is lost, it becomes more probable the system will stay together, until required energy for its breaking is supplied from outside. For the air in troposphere, the available mechanisms to supply so much energy (collisions, cosmic particles) can only do so for very little fraction of molecules, so majority of oxygen atoms will exist in pairs, much lower number in triplets and so on.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Good or not, “favoring” is a common term in physics, at least in English, and, particularly in the context of energy equilibria. We say that a reaction favors the lower-energy state. A search on this very site will find many examples. Here are just two: 1 2. A search of abstracts on arXiv finds many more examples.
    $endgroup$
    – MJD
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @MJD common or not, I think it is not good to use it before explaining the science behind the phenomenon, especially to beginners, because it is likely to confuse them or induce bad thinking habits. For some other uses such as popularization or informal talk between scientists it may be fine.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    39 mins ago





















3












$begingroup$

An $text{O}^{2+}$ ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time.



Similarly, you can have a high-elevation lake, and it can be absolutely stable if there is no path for water to drain out.




Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




So no, as shown by that example, it is not the same thing.



However, of you have a higher-elevation lake and another one whose water level is 10 meters lower, and they're connected by a stream bed, then water will drain out of the higher one until the two surfaces reach an equal level. The stable state is the one that has the minimum energy (minimum total gravitational potential energy of all the water). This is analogous to what happens when oxygen and hydrogen are mixed. The electrons are like the water.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Ahh, so stability is basically the ability to maintain your properties in light of the environment, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Korvexius
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    > "An ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time." That is not so clear cut. In empty vacuum yes, but in real one, there is background EM radiation everywhere that can break and separate molecule's/ion's constituents. This is easy to see from the fact that such isolated system has increasing density of energy levels to infinity when energy approaches 0.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    50 mins ago





















1












$begingroup$

The oxygen atoms when get close to each other, would certainly interact. When they interact, their is a higher probability that the electrons are shared between the atoms. When they share, they will lose energy.
They will not break apart unless energy comes again from somewhere and satisfies them to stay separated.



And no being stable is not equal to being neutral. Take oxygen atom for example, it is more stable in the ion form than the neutral oxygen atom.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




NightcoRohak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$


    Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




    No, not at all: many atoms are more stable after they've either absorbed (an) electron(s) or shed (an) electron(s).



    A good example is the formation of table salt, $mathrm{NaCl}$, aka sodium chloride.



    This compound forms when sodium atoms lose an electron (the valence electron), as in:



    $$mathrm{Na}to mathrm{Na^+}+ mathrm{e^-}$$



    Similarly the choride atoms can absorb an electron:



    $$mathrm{Cl_2}+ 2mathrm{e^-}to 2mathrm{Cl^-}+ 2mathrm{e^-}$$



    When those ions combine we get:



    $$2mathrm{Na}+mathrm{Cl_2}to 2mathrm{NaCl}+Delta H$$



    $Delta H$ is the energy released in the process. The arrangement of these elements in the ionic lattice $mathrm{NaCl}$ is more stable than the combination of the (unreacted) elements.



    By losing its 'lone' $mathrm{3s^1}$ valence electron, sodium takes on the very stable electron configuration of neon. Similarly, by absorbing an electron into its $mathrm{3s^23p^5}$ valence electrons, it assumes the very stable electron configuration of argon.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459809%2fwhy-do-atoms-want-to-be-stable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4












      $begingroup$

      Wanting or favoring are not very good terms in physics. More scientific view on this would be that whenever an oxygen atom comes close to another atom, they interact and provided things are right (such as the number of electrons and their state), the atoms attract and can get closer, while losing part of their initial energy, in the form of radiation or lost electron or transfer some energy to other atom/molecule in a scattering event.



      After the bonding energy is lost, it becomes more probable the system will stay together, until required energy for its breaking is supplied from outside. For the air in troposphere, the available mechanisms to supply so much energy (collisions, cosmic particles) can only do so for very little fraction of molecules, so majority of oxygen atoms will exist in pairs, much lower number in triplets and so on.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Good or not, “favoring” is a common term in physics, at least in English, and, particularly in the context of energy equilibria. We say that a reaction favors the lower-energy state. A search on this very site will find many examples. Here are just two: 1 2. A search of abstracts on arXiv finds many more examples.
        $endgroup$
        – MJD
        1 hour ago










      • $begingroup$
        @MJD common or not, I think it is not good to use it before explaining the science behind the phenomenon, especially to beginners, because it is likely to confuse them or induce bad thinking habits. For some other uses such as popularization or informal talk between scientists it may be fine.
        $endgroup$
        – Ján Lalinský
        39 mins ago


















      4












      $begingroup$

      Wanting or favoring are not very good terms in physics. More scientific view on this would be that whenever an oxygen atom comes close to another atom, they interact and provided things are right (such as the number of electrons and their state), the atoms attract and can get closer, while losing part of their initial energy, in the form of radiation or lost electron or transfer some energy to other atom/molecule in a scattering event.



      After the bonding energy is lost, it becomes more probable the system will stay together, until required energy for its breaking is supplied from outside. For the air in troposphere, the available mechanisms to supply so much energy (collisions, cosmic particles) can only do so for very little fraction of molecules, so majority of oxygen atoms will exist in pairs, much lower number in triplets and so on.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Good or not, “favoring” is a common term in physics, at least in English, and, particularly in the context of energy equilibria. We say that a reaction favors the lower-energy state. A search on this very site will find many examples. Here are just two: 1 2. A search of abstracts on arXiv finds many more examples.
        $endgroup$
        – MJD
        1 hour ago










      • $begingroup$
        @MJD common or not, I think it is not good to use it before explaining the science behind the phenomenon, especially to beginners, because it is likely to confuse them or induce bad thinking habits. For some other uses such as popularization or informal talk between scientists it may be fine.
        $endgroup$
        – Ján Lalinský
        39 mins ago
















      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$

      Wanting or favoring are not very good terms in physics. More scientific view on this would be that whenever an oxygen atom comes close to another atom, they interact and provided things are right (such as the number of electrons and their state), the atoms attract and can get closer, while losing part of their initial energy, in the form of radiation or lost electron or transfer some energy to other atom/molecule in a scattering event.



      After the bonding energy is lost, it becomes more probable the system will stay together, until required energy for its breaking is supplied from outside. For the air in troposphere, the available mechanisms to supply so much energy (collisions, cosmic particles) can only do so for very little fraction of molecules, so majority of oxygen atoms will exist in pairs, much lower number in triplets and so on.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      Wanting or favoring are not very good terms in physics. More scientific view on this would be that whenever an oxygen atom comes close to another atom, they interact and provided things are right (such as the number of electrons and their state), the atoms attract and can get closer, while losing part of their initial energy, in the form of radiation or lost electron or transfer some energy to other atom/molecule in a scattering event.



      After the bonding energy is lost, it becomes more probable the system will stay together, until required energy for its breaking is supplied from outside. For the air in troposphere, the available mechanisms to supply so much energy (collisions, cosmic particles) can only do so for very little fraction of molecules, so majority of oxygen atoms will exist in pairs, much lower number in triplets and so on.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered 6 hours ago









      Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský

      14.9k1334




      14.9k1334












      • $begingroup$
        Good or not, “favoring” is a common term in physics, at least in English, and, particularly in the context of energy equilibria. We say that a reaction favors the lower-energy state. A search on this very site will find many examples. Here are just two: 1 2. A search of abstracts on arXiv finds many more examples.
        $endgroup$
        – MJD
        1 hour ago










      • $begingroup$
        @MJD common or not, I think it is not good to use it before explaining the science behind the phenomenon, especially to beginners, because it is likely to confuse them or induce bad thinking habits. For some other uses such as popularization or informal talk between scientists it may be fine.
        $endgroup$
        – Ján Lalinský
        39 mins ago




















      • $begingroup$
        Good or not, “favoring” is a common term in physics, at least in English, and, particularly in the context of energy equilibria. We say that a reaction favors the lower-energy state. A search on this very site will find many examples. Here are just two: 1 2. A search of abstracts on arXiv finds many more examples.
        $endgroup$
        – MJD
        1 hour ago










      • $begingroup$
        @MJD common or not, I think it is not good to use it before explaining the science behind the phenomenon, especially to beginners, because it is likely to confuse them or induce bad thinking habits. For some other uses such as popularization or informal talk between scientists it may be fine.
        $endgroup$
        – Ján Lalinský
        39 mins ago


















      $begingroup$
      Good or not, “favoring” is a common term in physics, at least in English, and, particularly in the context of energy equilibria. We say that a reaction favors the lower-energy state. A search on this very site will find many examples. Here are just two: 1 2. A search of abstracts on arXiv finds many more examples.
      $endgroup$
      – MJD
      1 hour ago




      $begingroup$
      Good or not, “favoring” is a common term in physics, at least in English, and, particularly in the context of energy equilibria. We say that a reaction favors the lower-energy state. A search on this very site will find many examples. Here are just two: 1 2. A search of abstracts on arXiv finds many more examples.
      $endgroup$
      – MJD
      1 hour ago












      $begingroup$
      @MJD common or not, I think it is not good to use it before explaining the science behind the phenomenon, especially to beginners, because it is likely to confuse them or induce bad thinking habits. For some other uses such as popularization or informal talk between scientists it may be fine.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      39 mins ago






      $begingroup$
      @MJD common or not, I think it is not good to use it before explaining the science behind the phenomenon, especially to beginners, because it is likely to confuse them or induce bad thinking habits. For some other uses such as popularization or informal talk between scientists it may be fine.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      39 mins ago













      3












      $begingroup$

      An $text{O}^{2+}$ ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time.



      Similarly, you can have a high-elevation lake, and it can be absolutely stable if there is no path for water to drain out.




      Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




      So no, as shown by that example, it is not the same thing.



      However, of you have a higher-elevation lake and another one whose water level is 10 meters lower, and they're connected by a stream bed, then water will drain out of the higher one until the two surfaces reach an equal level. The stable state is the one that has the minimum energy (minimum total gravitational potential energy of all the water). This is analogous to what happens when oxygen and hydrogen are mixed. The electrons are like the water.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Ahh, so stability is basically the ability to maintain your properties in light of the environment, right?
        $endgroup$
        – Korvexius
        4 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        > "An ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time." That is not so clear cut. In empty vacuum yes, but in real one, there is background EM radiation everywhere that can break and separate molecule's/ion's constituents. This is easy to see from the fact that such isolated system has increasing density of energy levels to infinity when energy approaches 0.
        $endgroup$
        – Ján Lalinský
        50 mins ago


















      3












      $begingroup$

      An $text{O}^{2+}$ ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time.



      Similarly, you can have a high-elevation lake, and it can be absolutely stable if there is no path for water to drain out.




      Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




      So no, as shown by that example, it is not the same thing.



      However, of you have a higher-elevation lake and another one whose water level is 10 meters lower, and they're connected by a stream bed, then water will drain out of the higher one until the two surfaces reach an equal level. The stable state is the one that has the minimum energy (minimum total gravitational potential energy of all the water). This is analogous to what happens when oxygen and hydrogen are mixed. The electrons are like the water.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Ahh, so stability is basically the ability to maintain your properties in light of the environment, right?
        $endgroup$
        – Korvexius
        4 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        > "An ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time." That is not so clear cut. In empty vacuum yes, but in real one, there is background EM radiation everywhere that can break and separate molecule's/ion's constituents. This is easy to see from the fact that such isolated system has increasing density of energy levels to infinity when energy approaches 0.
        $endgroup$
        – Ján Lalinský
        50 mins ago
















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$

      An $text{O}^{2+}$ ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time.



      Similarly, you can have a high-elevation lake, and it can be absolutely stable if there is no path for water to drain out.




      Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




      So no, as shown by that example, it is not the same thing.



      However, of you have a higher-elevation lake and another one whose water level is 10 meters lower, and they're connected by a stream bed, then water will drain out of the higher one until the two surfaces reach an equal level. The stable state is the one that has the minimum energy (minimum total gravitational potential energy of all the water). This is analogous to what happens when oxygen and hydrogen are mixed. The electrons are like the water.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      An $text{O}^{2+}$ ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time.



      Similarly, you can have a high-elevation lake, and it can be absolutely stable if there is no path for water to drain out.




      Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




      So no, as shown by that example, it is not the same thing.



      However, of you have a higher-elevation lake and another one whose water level is 10 meters lower, and they're connected by a stream bed, then water will drain out of the higher one until the two surfaces reach an equal level. The stable state is the one that has the minimum energy (minimum total gravitational potential energy of all the water). This is analogous to what happens when oxygen and hydrogen are mixed. The electrons are like the water.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered 4 hours ago









      Ben CrowellBen Crowell

      50.4k6155298




      50.4k6155298












      • $begingroup$
        Ahh, so stability is basically the ability to maintain your properties in light of the environment, right?
        $endgroup$
        – Korvexius
        4 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        > "An ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time." That is not so clear cut. In empty vacuum yes, but in real one, there is background EM radiation everywhere that can break and separate molecule's/ion's constituents. This is easy to see from the fact that such isolated system has increasing density of energy levels to infinity when energy approaches 0.
        $endgroup$
        – Ján Lalinský
        50 mins ago




















      • $begingroup$
        Ahh, so stability is basically the ability to maintain your properties in light of the environment, right?
        $endgroup$
        – Korvexius
        4 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        > "An ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time." That is not so clear cut. In empty vacuum yes, but in real one, there is background EM radiation everywhere that can break and separate molecule's/ion's constituents. This is easy to see from the fact that such isolated system has increasing density of energy levels to infinity when energy approaches 0.
        $endgroup$
        – Ján Lalinský
        50 mins ago


















      $begingroup$
      Ahh, so stability is basically the ability to maintain your properties in light of the environment, right?
      $endgroup$
      – Korvexius
      4 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Ahh, so stability is basically the ability to maintain your properties in light of the environment, right?
      $endgroup$
      – Korvexius
      4 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      > "An ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time." That is not so clear cut. In empty vacuum yes, but in real one, there is background EM radiation everywhere that can break and separate molecule's/ion's constituents. This is easy to see from the fact that such isolated system has increasing density of energy levels to infinity when energy approaches 0.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      50 mins ago






      $begingroup$
      > "An ion, with 6 electrons, is stable in a vacuum. If you put one in the depths of interstellar space, far from any other matter, then it will sit in that state until the end of time." That is not so clear cut. In empty vacuum yes, but in real one, there is background EM radiation everywhere that can break and separate molecule's/ion's constituents. This is easy to see from the fact that such isolated system has increasing density of energy levels to infinity when energy approaches 0.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      50 mins ago













      1












      $begingroup$

      The oxygen atoms when get close to each other, would certainly interact. When they interact, their is a higher probability that the electrons are shared between the atoms. When they share, they will lose energy.
      They will not break apart unless energy comes again from somewhere and satisfies them to stay separated.



      And no being stable is not equal to being neutral. Take oxygen atom for example, it is more stable in the ion form than the neutral oxygen atom.






      share|cite|improve this answer








      New contributor




      NightcoRohak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$


















        1












        $begingroup$

        The oxygen atoms when get close to each other, would certainly interact. When they interact, their is a higher probability that the electrons are shared between the atoms. When they share, they will lose energy.
        They will not break apart unless energy comes again from somewhere and satisfies them to stay separated.



        And no being stable is not equal to being neutral. Take oxygen atom for example, it is more stable in the ion form than the neutral oxygen atom.






        share|cite|improve this answer








        New contributor




        NightcoRohak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          The oxygen atoms when get close to each other, would certainly interact. When they interact, their is a higher probability that the electrons are shared between the atoms. When they share, they will lose energy.
          They will not break apart unless energy comes again from somewhere and satisfies them to stay separated.



          And no being stable is not equal to being neutral. Take oxygen atom for example, it is more stable in the ion form than the neutral oxygen atom.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          NightcoRohak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$



          The oxygen atoms when get close to each other, would certainly interact. When they interact, their is a higher probability that the electrons are shared between the atoms. When they share, they will lose energy.
          They will not break apart unless energy comes again from somewhere and satisfies them to stay separated.



          And no being stable is not equal to being neutral. Take oxygen atom for example, it is more stable in the ion form than the neutral oxygen atom.







          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          NightcoRohak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer






          New contributor




          NightcoRohak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 5 hours ago









          NightcoRohakNightcoRohak

          267




          267




          New contributor




          NightcoRohak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          NightcoRohak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          NightcoRohak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.























              1












              $begingroup$


              Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




              No, not at all: many atoms are more stable after they've either absorbed (an) electron(s) or shed (an) electron(s).



              A good example is the formation of table salt, $mathrm{NaCl}$, aka sodium chloride.



              This compound forms when sodium atoms lose an electron (the valence electron), as in:



              $$mathrm{Na}to mathrm{Na^+}+ mathrm{e^-}$$



              Similarly the choride atoms can absorb an electron:



              $$mathrm{Cl_2}+ 2mathrm{e^-}to 2mathrm{Cl^-}+ 2mathrm{e^-}$$



              When those ions combine we get:



              $$2mathrm{Na}+mathrm{Cl_2}to 2mathrm{NaCl}+Delta H$$



              $Delta H$ is the energy released in the process. The arrangement of these elements in the ionic lattice $mathrm{NaCl}$ is more stable than the combination of the (unreacted) elements.



              By losing its 'lone' $mathrm{3s^1}$ valence electron, sodium takes on the very stable electron configuration of neon. Similarly, by absorbing an electron into its $mathrm{3s^23p^5}$ valence electrons, it assumes the very stable electron configuration of argon.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$


                Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




                No, not at all: many atoms are more stable after they've either absorbed (an) electron(s) or shed (an) electron(s).



                A good example is the formation of table salt, $mathrm{NaCl}$, aka sodium chloride.



                This compound forms when sodium atoms lose an electron (the valence electron), as in:



                $$mathrm{Na}to mathrm{Na^+}+ mathrm{e^-}$$



                Similarly the choride atoms can absorb an electron:



                $$mathrm{Cl_2}+ 2mathrm{e^-}to 2mathrm{Cl^-}+ 2mathrm{e^-}$$



                When those ions combine we get:



                $$2mathrm{Na}+mathrm{Cl_2}to 2mathrm{NaCl}+Delta H$$



                $Delta H$ is the energy released in the process. The arrangement of these elements in the ionic lattice $mathrm{NaCl}$ is more stable than the combination of the (unreacted) elements.



                By losing its 'lone' $mathrm{3s^1}$ valence electron, sodium takes on the very stable electron configuration of neon. Similarly, by absorbing an electron into its $mathrm{3s^23p^5}$ valence electrons, it assumes the very stable electron configuration of argon.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$


                  Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




                  No, not at all: many atoms are more stable after they've either absorbed (an) electron(s) or shed (an) electron(s).



                  A good example is the formation of table salt, $mathrm{NaCl}$, aka sodium chloride.



                  This compound forms when sodium atoms lose an electron (the valence electron), as in:



                  $$mathrm{Na}to mathrm{Na^+}+ mathrm{e^-}$$



                  Similarly the choride atoms can absorb an electron:



                  $$mathrm{Cl_2}+ 2mathrm{e^-}to 2mathrm{Cl^-}+ 2mathrm{e^-}$$



                  When those ions combine we get:



                  $$2mathrm{Na}+mathrm{Cl_2}to 2mathrm{NaCl}+Delta H$$



                  $Delta H$ is the energy released in the process. The arrangement of these elements in the ionic lattice $mathrm{NaCl}$ is more stable than the combination of the (unreacted) elements.



                  By losing its 'lone' $mathrm{3s^1}$ valence electron, sodium takes on the very stable electron configuration of neon. Similarly, by absorbing an electron into its $mathrm{3s^23p^5}$ valence electrons, it assumes the very stable electron configuration of argon.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$




                  Also, is an atom being stable identical to it being neutral?




                  No, not at all: many atoms are more stable after they've either absorbed (an) electron(s) or shed (an) electron(s).



                  A good example is the formation of table salt, $mathrm{NaCl}$, aka sodium chloride.



                  This compound forms when sodium atoms lose an electron (the valence electron), as in:



                  $$mathrm{Na}to mathrm{Na^+}+ mathrm{e^-}$$



                  Similarly the choride atoms can absorb an electron:



                  $$mathrm{Cl_2}+ 2mathrm{e^-}to 2mathrm{Cl^-}+ 2mathrm{e^-}$$



                  When those ions combine we get:



                  $$2mathrm{Na}+mathrm{Cl_2}to 2mathrm{NaCl}+Delta H$$



                  $Delta H$ is the energy released in the process. The arrangement of these elements in the ionic lattice $mathrm{NaCl}$ is more stable than the combination of the (unreacted) elements.



                  By losing its 'lone' $mathrm{3s^1}$ valence electron, sodium takes on the very stable electron configuration of neon. Similarly, by absorbing an electron into its $mathrm{3s^23p^5}$ valence electrons, it assumes the very stable electron configuration of argon.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 36 mins ago









                  Ry-

                  1094




                  1094










                  answered 5 hours ago









                  GertGert

                  17.7k32959




                  17.7k32959






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459809%2fwhy-do-atoms-want-to-be-stable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Ponta tanko

                      Image
                      Usona ponta tanko M60A1 Ponta tanko estas, simile kiel kirasita savveturilo, inter specialaj kirasitaj transportiloj. Kiel pontaj tankoj eblas konsideri ĉiujn memmovigaj rimedoj ebligantaj superi obstaklojn ĝis larĝeco 24 metroj rekte en spaco de bataloperacoj. Ties ĉefa tasko estas ebligi al la propraj taĉmentoj daŭrigi en rapida antaŭenirado sen senbezona reteniĝo. El tio pli-malpli rezultas taktikaj-teknikaj postuloj, kiujn ili devas plenumi. Precipe temas pri kapablo operacii komune kun unue-sinsekvaj taĉmentoj kaj transpontigi obstaklojn dum kelke da minutoj. This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
                      Read more

                      Tantalo (mitologio)

                      Image
                      Ĉi tiu artikolo temas pri mitologio. Por aliaj signifoj vidu la paĝon Tantalo (apartigilo) . Tantalo , laŭ Gioacchino Assereto. Laŭ la helena mitologio, Tantalo (el la greka Τάνταλος , ŝancelanta aŭ tre malfeliĉa ) estis filo de Zeŭso kaj la oceanidino Pluto, laŭ la plej divastigata versio. Li estis reĝo de Frigio [1] aŭ de la monto Sipilo, en Lidio (Malgrandazio) [2] kaj post sia morto li suferis eternan torturadon ĉe la Tartaro, la plej profunda parto de Hadeso, rezervita por la plej perversaj homoj. Tamen, kelkaj rakontoj asertas ke li estis reĝo de Argo aŭ de Korinto [3] , aŭ ke li migris norden el la monto Sipilo por akiri la tronon de Paflagonio, el kie Ilo forpelis lin pro tio, ke Tantalo forkaptis kaj seksperfortis lian fraton Ganimedon [4] , kaj tiel ofendis la diojn. Verŝajne li ankaŭ regis urbon en okcidenta Anatolio, kiun oni nomis Tantalis [5] pro li, aŭ Sipilo , pro la monto sur kies flanko ankoraŭ staras ĝiaj ruinaĵoj [6] . Laŭ la geografiisto Strabo,...
                      Read more

                      Erzsébet Schaár

                      Image
                      Erzsébet Schaár Memportreto de Erzsébet Schaár en Pécs Personaj informoj Naskiĝo 27-an de julio 1908 ( 1908-07-27 ) en Budafok Morto 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 ( 1975-08-29 ) (67-jara) en Budapeŝto Ŝtataneco Hungario Profesio skulptisto Familianoj Edz(in)o Tibor Vilt v   •   d   •   r Erzsébet Schaár [erĵEbet ŝAr], laŭ hungarlingve kutima sinsekvo Schaár Erzsébet estis hungara skulptisto. Ŝia edzo estis Tibor Vilt. Déryné Széppataki Róza en Miskolc fare de Erzsébet Schaár Erzsébet Schaár [1] naskiĝis la 27-an de julio 1908 en Budafok, ŝi mortis la 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 en Budapeŝto. Enhavo 1 Biografio 2 Elektitaj solaj ekspozicioj 3 Elektitaj kolektivaj ekspozicioj 4 Elektitaj skulptaĵoj 5 Elektitaj disĉiploj 6 Fontoj 7 Referencoj Biografio | Erzsébet Schaár studis en Industriarta Lernejo, poste en Reĝa Belarta Altlernejo (1924-1926). Ŝia ĉefinstruisto estis Zsig...
                      Read more