No material can have a net negative charge. [Answered: Wrong!]

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, martillo said:

No. It's you are misunderstanding what I say. "Molecules" are made of atoms of course. You are taking a divergent approach in the thread making the thing a words' salad. You are not being fair in the discussion.

Ions are just atoms that lose one or more of its electrons but you know, I don't want to lose my time and the time of other ones in the forum discussing trivial intuitive concepts.

If you start from incorrect or overgeneral or poorly worded ideas you cannot hope to reach sensible conclusions.

I have not offered ridicule (or red marks) in this thread, but have tried to help you tighten up your premises to the point where they might form a useful starting point and not require constant revision.

For instance your definition of ions is false.

There is no other word for it.

You can buy a negative ion generator on Ebay or at a high street shop.

 

[martillo]

24 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Only when you reach at 0ºK. 😊

You are right...

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

For instance your definition of ions is false.

There is no other word for it.

You can buy a negative ion generator on Ebay or at a high street shop.

Which is your definition of a "negative ion"? An atom with more electrons than protons? How that can be?

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[exchemist]

10 minutes ago, martillo said:

 

Which is your definition of a "negative ion"? An atom with more electrons than protons? How that can be?

Simple: an atom in which one of the unoccupied, or only singly occupied, orbitals accepts an extra electron from somewhere.

I've already told you that the chlorine atom has an "electron affinity". What this means is that if it gains an extra electron, which can go into one of the p valence orbitals, since these are not fully occupied, the overall energy of the atom goes down, i.e, it is more stable than the neutral atom. That change is energetically favoured.

In practice, in many chemical compounds, the extra electron is taken from a metal atom, which has a relatively low ionisation energy. So the overall change is to make a chemical compound that is more stable than atoms of the element. Na + Cl -> Na⁺Cl⁻ . An example of ionic bonding, one of the three main types of bonding in chemistry.  

[Eise]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

 

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Your position would invalidate all of chemistry, physics, and daily experience (especially at children's parties). This is worse than 'Einstein was wrong'. Only 'the earth is flat' tops you here.

Y apologize, I was wrong stating atoms are neutral at 0ºK only. As I said after:

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Second, atoms don't have all of its electrons at 0ºK only. There are many excited states where it still have the electrons until beginning to lose them at some higher temperature where the photoelectric effect begins to happen. So there's some temperature at which atoms still have all of their electrons.

Sorry for being unclear: it is not just your statement about atoms at 0ºK, it was about your complete position as stated in your OP. 

[Ghideon]

20 minutes ago, martillo said:

Why? What I say is that at normal environment's temperature the things have the same potential that is called "neutral" but that actually is not zero. Is just the also called "ground" potential. Basic electrical experiments just involve difference of potentials all being actually positive.

I am referring to mainstream science* where charged balloons repel each other, and neutral balloons do not. Your statements contradicts simple observations of how balloons behave**. Without a new model for physics (and chemistry) and supporting evidence I'm arguing in favour of established explanations.

 

*) There is no evidence supporting the claims of the OP
**)  Just to be unnecessarily clear: When filled with air, handled at room temperature as part of an experiment or for use as a toy or decoration or other purposes.

[swansont]

12 hours ago, martillo said:

Yes I dispute. An atom could be really neutral at 0ºK only having equal number of protons and electrons at that temperature only.

This is patently untrue.

If you had said all atoms, then it would be true. Atoms at some temperature will have an excited state distribution that depends on the temperature (there's an e^-(E-E₀)/kT term in the equation for the distribution of states). But at room temperature, the vast majority of atoms will be in the ground state. Some will have exited state electrons, and a few will temporarily be ionized.

12 hours ago, martillo said:

Hydrogen has only one proton and can have only one electron if it would be the case. The Hydrogen's spectrums (emission or absorption) are obtained by the spectrums in the energies of the photons it emits or absorb but this depends on the possible energy the atom can absorb or emit. I mean the energy is stored in the atom composed by the proton and the electron in the different configurations it can have.

And it can add an electron and become negatively charged,. We have experimental proof - the TRIUMF cyclotron depending on this being the case is one example

The spectrum matches the theory, which is based on a proton and electron being bound, via the electrostatic interaction (and also subject to other details which have small impacts)

12 hours ago, martillo said:

.

Of course there is.

Where? I see no theoretical model and no experimental corroboration. Assertion is not science.

2 hours ago, martillo said:

First, there´s one and only one thing that is really negative: the proper electron. When I say "material" I mean a substance made of atoms. It could be a single atom or more.

And electrons can become attached to a material, which started out neutral.That material would then be negatively charged.

2 hours ago, martillo said:

Second, atoms don't have all of its electrons at 0ºK only. There are many excited states where it still have the electrons until beginning to lose them at some higher temperature where the photoelectric effect begins to happen. So there's some temperature at which atoms still have all of their electrons.

Addressed above, and I will reiterate the PEE is a photon effect, while the distribution of excited states that depends on temperature is due to the collisions between them - not because of photons causing an excitation. They are distinct phenomena.

2 hours ago, martillo said:

The emission and absorption spectrums are obtained with the electron still in the atoms but in different states of configuration and so energy. At some temperature atoms begin to lose electrons becoming positively charged and more positive as temperature increases and with the increase of temperature substances made of atoms normally pass from solid to liquid and to gas states...

Which is irrelevant to the claim of the OP. Substances can gain electrons and become negatively charged.

Your personal mental model of how this all works is flawed.

 

[martillo]

Thinking deeply on the subjects of the last posts... It could take some time for me...

A question now:

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Simple: an atom in which one of the unoccupied, or only singly occupied, orbitals accepts an extra electron from somewhere.

Do you mean that Pauli's exclusion principle does not hold?

 

[exchemist]

3 minutes ago, martillo said:

Thinking deeply on the subjects of the last posts... It could take some time for me...

A question now:

Do you mean that Pauli's exclusion principle does not hold?

 

Not at all. If the exclusion principle did not hold, all the electrons could pile into the lowest energy orbital  - and there would be no chemistry.

But one of the quantum numbers is a spin quantum number. Each orbital can accept 2 electrons, with opposed spin orientations, because that satisfies the exclusion principle. In Chlorine and the other halogens, there are 5 p electrons, so one orbital has only single occupancy and can thus accept another one.  

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, martillo said:

Thinking deeply on the subjects of the last posts... It could take some time for me...

That's a really good idea.

One suggestion.

Try to avoid switching back and fore between a macroscopic (bulk) view and a microscopic (atomic) view.

 

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Which is your definition of a "negative ion"? An atom with more electrons than protons? How that can be?

 

I didn't say anything about an electron with more electrons than protons, you did.

 

Ions can be positive or negative and they can be formed from atoms (they are not then atoms and do not possss all the properties of the atoms they came from) or they may be combinations of atoms. The combinations may of course include atoms of sevaral different elements eg (CO₃)^2- ; (CN)^- 

The situation can be even more complicated when a central positive ion is surrounded by negative ions called ligands

for example six singly charged (CN)^-  cyanide ions can surround a doubly positive ferrous ion to form the quadruply negatively charged ligand complex (Fe(CN)₆)^4-

https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch12/complex.php

Even more complicated are non stoichiometric complex ions which appear to violate valency rules.

Pauli is not actually broken but you need to bring in aditional otherwise non active orbitals to explain them.

Titanium and Chromium ions are favourites for this

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9025.pdf

 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Not at all. If the exclusion principle did not hold, all the electrons could pile into the lowest energy orbital  - and there would be no chemistry.

But one of the quantum numbers is a spin quantum number. Each orbital can accept 2 electrons, with opposed spin orientations, because that satisfies the exclusion principle. In Chlorine and the other halogens, there are 5 p electrons, so one orbital has only single occupancy and can thus accept another one.  

To this I will add that you could make a conjecture that atoms that are susceptible to forming negative ions have a vacancy in the same orbital. e.g. Hydrogen would accept a second electron with the opposite spin, and this might be true of all of the halogens, since they are one electron short of a filled shell. And Br, Cl, I and F are all listed in my earlier link as being elements that are known to form negative ions.  

[martillo]

Well, I have to apologize for me being wrong in some things while trying to defend the statement of the title of the thread, I admit. I made a deep review of my point of view and it needs some big corrections.

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

And it can add an electron and become negatively charged,. We have experimental proof - the TRIUMF cyclotron depending on this being the case is one example

Taking a look at the TRIUMFF cyclotron working with the rare ion of hydrogen having one proton and two electrons I must make just one exception to rule. In mathematics it is said that the exception makes the rule. In my case the exception to the "rule" that no "material" (thing composed by atoms and at least one atom) can be negatively is that rare hydrogen ion. The other ions are perfectly explained by the spatial distribution of their positive protons and negative electrons having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms.

 

The other subject already pointed in the thread several times is that common "materials" at normal temperatures are all neutral with zero charge. I realized now that is right but that can be explained by the distribution of the charges. I mean at normal temperatures there are electrons expulsed from the atoms (which become positively charged) but these electrons stay orbiting around although not in any of the atoms' quantum levels. This way the "materials" they compose stay neutral with zero net charge as "seen" by other "materials" around.

So I was wrong in my statements about things just being at some positive potential at normal temperatures and that just a difference in the potentials would explain it all, I admit. Things are normally neutral with zero net charge...

The problem of the charged balloons repelling each other also need a review now. I think now that the balloons become positively charged and not negatively. I mean they lose electrons, not gain electrons... 

 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Try to avoid switching back and fore between a macroscopic (bulk) view and a microscopic (atomic) view.

But there is precisely the key on the subject of the thread...

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

To this I will add that you could make a conjecture that atoms that are susceptible to forming negative ions have a vacancy in the same orbital. e.g. Hydrogen would accept a second electron with the opposite spin, and this might be true of all of the halogens, since they are one electron short of a filled shell. And Br, Cl, I and F are all listed in my earlier link as being elements that are known to form negative ions.

 I think I can explain them with the spatial structure of them "having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms" as I pointed above...

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[exchemist]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

To this I will add that you could make a conjecture that atoms that are susceptible to forming negative ions have a vacancy in the same orbital. e.g. Hydrogen would accept a second electron with the opposite spin, and this might be true of all of the halogens, since they are one electron short of a filled shell. And Br, Cl, I and F are all listed in my earlier link as being elements that are known to form negative ions.  

Indeed. Somewhat counterintuitively, to a chemist, most elements have a +ve electron affinity. To your point, even alkali metals have a +ve electron affinity. But Chlorine, as it happens, has the greatest electron affinity of any element, I think. 

It has to be borne in mind that electron affinity applies to atoms, in the gas phase. In reality most elements are not generally found as single atoms - hydrogen being a case in point.  Generally this ability to accept more electrons is satisfied via bonding. 

[martillo]

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Indeed. Somewhat counterintuitively, to a chemist, most elements have a +ve electron affinity. To your point, even alkali metals have a +ve electron affinity. But Chlorine, as it happens, has the greatest electron affinity of any element, I think. 

It has to be borne in mind that electron affinity applies to atoms, in the gas phase. In reality most elements are not generally found as single atoms - hydrogen being a case in point.  Generally this ability to accept more electrons is satisfied via bonding. 

Again, I think I can explain them with the spatial structure of them "having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms" as I pointed above...

[exchemist]

Just now, martillo said:

Again, I think I can explain them with the spatial structure of them "having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms" as I pointed above...

Yes, that's what we call the "valence shell", i.e. the outermost, incompletely filled shell. It is electrons in the valence shell orbitals that take part in chemical bonding.

Keep going: at this rate you may learn some chemistry!  

[studiot]

18 minutes ago, martillo said:

Well, I have to apologize for me being wrong in some things while trying to defend the statement of the title of the thread, I admit. I made a deep review of my point of view and it needs some big corrections.

Well we all make mistakes and I made a comical one here.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I didn't say anything about an electron with more electrons than protons, you did.

I should have course said

I didn't say anything about an electron atom with more electrons than protons, you did.

I think that although your ideas are now moving in the right direction some serious misunderstandings still remain in your last post and need further work.

I will however say +1 for admitting the mistake.

But electrons are not expelled from the nucleus and the nucleus is always positive.

24 minutes ago, martillo said:

I mean at normal temperatures there are electrons expulsed from the nucleus of atoms (which become positively charged) but these electrons stay orbiting around although not in any of the atoms' quantum levels.

 

[martillo]

14 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes, that's what we call the "valence shell", i.e. the outermost, incompletely filled shell. It is electrons in the valence shell orbitals that take part in chemical bonding.

Keep going: at this rate you may learn some chemistry!  

Right but I'm explaining them with just single electrons in the orbitals only, not needing extra electrons in the atom. I mean they would not become negatively charged...

You were right in pointing the mistake:

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

But electrons are not expelled from the nucleus and the nucleus is always positive.

I already edited it. Luckily had time to the edition removing "the nucleus" from the phrase.

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[exchemist]

7 minutes ago, martillo said:

Right but I'm explaining them with just single electrons in the orbitals only, not needing extra electrons in the atom. I mean they would not become negatively charged...

I don't follow you. Atoms with incomplete valence shells can accept more electrons either by becoming negative ions (which really do have a net negative charge, as has been explained to you), or by accepting a share of more electrons through covalent bonding, which usually does not lead to a whole net -ve charge (though it can in the case of dative, or coordinate, bonding). 

I repeat: a chlorine atom accepts an extra electron and becomes an anion, which has a net -ve charge: 17 protons and 18 electrons. That is what you have in common table salt-  and in hundred of other compounds of Chlorine with metallic elements. I really do not understand what your problem is with this.

Edited July 14, 2022 by exchemist

[martillo]

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I don't follow you. Atoms with incomplete valence shells can accept more electrons either by becoming negative ions (which really do have a net negative charge, as has been explained to you), or by accepting a share of more electrons through covalent bonding, which usually does not lead to a whole net -ve charge (though it can in the case of dative, or coordinate, bonding). 

I repeat: a chlorine atom accepts an extra electron and becomes an anion, which has a net -ve charge: 17 protons and 18 electrons. I really do not understand what your problem is with this.

You mention two possibilities for making the bonds. I stay with the second one. I think chemical bonds with shared electrons can be perfectly explained with electrons in outers positions of the atom in a way that can be easily shared by atoms with other atoms which would have a structure that would accept those shared electrons. This way there´s no need to consider that possibility of atoms becoming negative ions.

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, martillo said:

I already edited it. Luckily had time to the edition removing "the nucleus" from the phrase.

Unluckily that was not the only misconception in your sentence.

For all the electrons under discussion:

Electrons do not 'orbit around'.

Atoms do not become 'positively charged'.

Electrons are never 'not in the quantum levels of the atoms.

The situation is much more complicated than this:-

44 minutes ago, martillo said:

I mean at normal temperatures there are electrons expulsed from the atoms (which become positively charged) but these electrons stay orbiting around although not in any of the atoms' quantum levels. This way the "materials" they compose stay neutral with zero net charge as "seen" by other "materials" around.

 

[martillo]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Atoms do not become 'positively charged'.

Never? How do you explain positive ions then?

[Ghideon]

55 minutes ago, martillo said:

I think now that the balloons become positively charged and not negatively. I mean they lose electrons, not gain electrons... 

That introduces even more contradictions (easily observed or logically concluded).

Since your are learning I'll give you some time to reason and spot the problems before I post an explanation, this is speculations section after all...

[exchemist]

57 minutes ago, martillo said:

You mention two possibilities for making the bonds. I stay with the second one. I think chemical bonds with shared electrons can be perfectly explained with electrons in outers positions of the atom in a way that can be easily shared by atoms with other atoms which would have a structure that would accept those shared electrons. This way there´s no need to consider that possibility of atoms becoming negative ions.

No that's quite wrong. We know that there are three main types of bonding: ionic, covalent and metallic - though there are often situations that are intermediate between these three archetypes. You can't just decide, arbitrarily, there is no such thing as ionic bonding. That's ignorant bullshit. Ionic bonding is evident from the types of structures formed (absence of finite numbers of fixed bonds, in ionic crystals), from electron density maps (X-ray diffraction) that show you there are areas of low, not high, electron density between atoms - and of course  from simple properties such as electrical conductivity in the liquid phase, solubility in polar solvents, and so on.

Chemical bonding is a huge and extremely well studied topic. You need at least to learn a bit about it before you start making these pronouncements.   

 

 

[Sensei]

7 hours ago, martillo said:

The other material absorbing the electron becomes just more negative than it previously was. Why do you assume it was neutral at the first time?

It had the same number of protons as electrons, so it was neutral. When an electron is ejected, the neutral atom or molecule loses an electron, so it now has more positive charge. After capturing an electron, the neutral atom or molecule gains an electron, so it now has more negative charge. Isn't that obvious?

Electrically charged particles, atoms (ions), or molecules, are easily detectable and observable by naked eye.. They reacts to external electric fields, and external magnetic fields.. Unlike neutral particles, neutral atoms, and neutral molecules, which do not react..

Visible in e.g. cloud chamber, Millikan oil drop experiment:

(Neutral particles are straight lines, circles to the left and right, are charged particles and their opposites)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Sensei

[martillo]

59 minutes ago, Sensei said:

It had the same number of protons as electrons, so it was neutral. When an electron is ejected, the neutral atom or molecule loses an electron, so it now has more positive charge. After capturing an electron, the neutral atom or molecule gains an electron, so it now has more negative charge. Isn't that obvious?

Is obvious for who not care about more electrons than protons existing in an atom. I'm worried about that and thinking if it would be really possible. A good explanation received by exchemist was involving two electrons with opposite spins occupying same level of energy in agreement with Pauli's exclusion principle but I'm considering if other way is possible without two electrons in the same level. I know now that it will not be so easy to present it as really possible and that would need to study several phenomena for that as exchemist pointed out.

59 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Electrically charged particles, atoms (ions), or molecules, are easily detectable and observable by naked eye.. They reacts to external electric fields, and external magnetic fields.. Unlike neutral particles, neutral atoms, and neutral molecules, which do not react..

e.g. cloud chamber, Millikan oil drop experiment

I'm well aware about that. Is there any experiment detecting negative ions the way your picture shows? I mean gas chambers or similar.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Chemical bonding is a huge and extremely well studied topic. You need at least to learn a bit about it before you start making these pronouncements.  

I agree now, I must study the subject a lot before pointing out such possibility. I'm not thinking in a non existing ionic bond but just in it working in a different way than it is explained. Hard thing to do anyway, aware now.

Edited July 14, 2022 by martillo

[studiot]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Is obvious for who not care about more electrons than protons existing in an atom. I'm worried about that and thinking if it would be really possible. A good explanation received by exchemist was involving two electrons with opposite spins occupying same level of energy in agreement with Pauli's exclusion principle but I'm considering if other way is possible without two electrons in the same level. I know now that it will not be so easy to present it as really possible and that would need to study several phenomena for that as exchemist pointed out.

I'm well aware about that. Is there any experiment detecting negative ions the way your picture shows? I mean gas chambers or similar.

I agree now, I must study the subject a lot before pointing out such possibility. I'm not thinking in a non existing ionic bond but just in it working in a different way than it is explained. Hard thing to do anyway, aware now.

 

I seriously recommend more listening and less guessing.

 

Of course it is possible for an atom to have extra electrons, that is how transistors work.

exchemist mentioned metallic bonds, listen to what he has to say about them.

 

3 hours ago, martillo said:

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Atoms do not become 'positively charged'.

Never? How do you explain positive ions then?

Yes never.

I have already told you that once an atom looses one or more electrons and remains an individual entity, it is called an ion.

Sometimes atoms band together to form metallic masses via metallic bonds.

In these circumstances, atoms loose their individuality forming a very very large 'molecule' that is basically the size of the lump of material.

Each former atom contributes a standard number of electrons to a common pool of electrons in a so called 'band'.

Impurities, either accidental or deliberate, can add an extra electron into the band. Arsenic or Phosphorus are added to the silicon of trnaistors to doe xactly this forming what is known as N-type material.