IRON electron sequence 2 8 14 2 OR 2 8 8 8 inside a star

[sunshaker]

As i understand iron as an electron sequence of 2 8 14 2,

 

but i was thinking that when stars start to produce iron, it signals the end of their lives,

could the iron that is produced within a star have an electron sequence of 2 8 8 8?

as the pressure would condense the elements sequence. becoming almost a noble element, which does not what to react,

 

So only when the star explodes does iron revert/expand to 2 8 14 2?

[swansont]

I'm pretty sure at the temperatures involved the iron is fairly well ionized, given that kT is around 1.2 keV. The structure is moot. Any chemical reaction is moot as well, since fusion involves the nuclei.

[sunshaker]

I'm pretty sure at the temperatures involved the iron is fairly well ionized, given that kT is around 1.2 keV. The structure is moot. Any chemical reaction is moot as well, since fusion involves the nuclei.

Thanks for your answer,

I was looking into neutron stars, and came across "Electron-degenerate matter", which i know little about, but it states electrons are compressed to there lowest energy levels,

Would this mean that each shell would contain the optimum electrons, and as i believe 8 is the optimum for the valence shell?

Or have i misunderstood "Electron-degenerate matter"?

[swansont]

Thanks for your answer,

I was looking into neutron stars, and came across "Electron-degenerate matter", which i know little about, but it states electrons are compressed to there lowest energy levels,

Would this mean that each shell would contain the optimum electrons, and as i believe 8 is the optimum for the valence shell?

Or have i misunderstood "Electron-degenerate matter"?

 

In a neutron star you have gone past this point. Electrons combine with protons and become neutrons. Hence the name.

[sunshaker]

In a neutron star you have gone past this point. Electrons combine with protons and become neutrons. Hence the name.

So could that theoretically mean, before it goes past this point, even for a tiny moment, the electrons could change there shells to 2 8 8 8?

Or even in a different type of star, Dwarfs etc?

[swansont]

So could that theoretically mean, before it goes past this point, even for a tiny moment, the electrons could change there shells to 2 8 8 8?

Or even in a different type of star, Dwarfs etc?

 

No. You'd have to support this with some physics to claim that such a thing could happen.

[sunshaker]

No. You'd have to support this with some physics to claim that such a thing could happen.

From what i can gather from the physics that is out there, electrons can change there shells when they absorb or lose energy,

Electrons farthest from the nucleus have most energy,

Electrons can move from shell to shell absorbing and losing energy as long as the energy is equal to the energy between said shells,

So when energy is lost the electrons fall back to a shell closer to the nucleus, and the lost energy is released as heat,

So this leads me to think that when iron is first formed within a star it as an electron sequence of 2 8 8 8 this energy is used up almost immediately so 6 electrons fall back to the next shell, leaving us with iron 2 8 14 2.

[John Cuthber]

The effect of neighbouring nuclei, even with iron at normal temperatures and pressures, is big enough to merge the atomic orbitals into molecular ones so the 2,8, 14 sequence is meaningless.

[sunshaker]

The effect of neighbouring nuclei, even with iron at normal temperatures and pressures, is big enough to merge the atomic orbitals into molecular ones so the 2,8, 14 sequence is meaningless.

???

2 8 14 is meaningless, unless you mean chromium at the centre of chromiumalpha centauri.

 

2 8 14 2 is the electron sequence of iron, so you mean iron is meaningless, i see now cheers.

[John Cuthber]

I mean all those nice sequences are meaningless because they only apply to individual atoms.

Since, as I said, they don't mean anything, I didn't bother to finish the one for iron atoms.

Have you ever seen iron atoms?

[Enthalpy]

2 8 14 2 is the electron sequence of iron

I'll make one single trial, since I'm less patient than John has been...

 

Electrons arrange according to the outside influences. If the context happens to be a lonely iron core, they arrange in 2.8.14.2 indeed - more details there

http://www.webelements.com/iron/atoms.html

By the way, 8 is not the number that fills any shell. It depends on the shell, and they don't even fill orderly. The "periodic table" is not periodic.

http://www.webelements.com/

 

Any other influence will change that. A simple external electric or magnetic field already deforms the orbitals and chenges their energies, as is seen from Zeeman effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect

 

As soon as a second atom passes the iron near enough, it makes a chemical bond (possibly unstable with a noble gas) which is a rearragement of the electrons on new "molecular orbitals" which are no more 2.8.14.2 - it's even worse with iron, which involves deeper electrons in its chemical bonds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_metal

so even on Earth, you'll never meet an iron atom in 2.8.14.2 state, as they're all bound in molecules.

 

The temperature of stars is strong enough to strip most or all electrons from an iron nucleus, so orbitals and shells mean very little.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

 

Where density is low (say, lower than the solids we know on Earth) electrons are far away from the nuclei and are little influenced by them.

 

Where density is similar to a solid or higher, new molecular orbitals appear to accommodate the electrons. Matter resulting from them may not be chemically stable, but stays in that density due to the attraction by mass. This can be called degenerate matter, especially if density is high and the temperature exceeds the binding energy of electrons, in which case attraction by individual nuclei is little important

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter

typically in a white dwarf.

 

Only at higher density do electrons and protons combine into a neutron star

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

there, electron shells have lost their significance for a looooong time.

[sunshaker]

I'll make one single trial, since I'm less patient than John has been...

Thank you, i have only recently took a strong interest in chemistry, which i never knew was so interesting, so thank you again for your patience,

 

 

I am just about getting my head around "molecular elements", and mono atomic elements that exsist in nature with single atoms as their basic units,

ie 1 atom of fe is also 1 molecule of fe being a mono atomic molecule which would still need to stablise by getting a full valence shell.

 

Also boiling as a phase change, molten metal to become a vapour, were electron shareing disappears.

 

It was when i tried to extend the periodic table and thought iron should be 2 8 8 8,

i seen this table as how the elements are before any expansions or interactions.http://alphaomegadotme.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/period-table-element-expandedtwindaa.xls

 

but i have much to think on.

 

cheers

Edited May 30, 2013 by sunshaker

[John Cuthber]

"Also boiling as a phase change, molten metal to become a vapour, were electron shareing disappears."

Not at the temperatures and pressures in a star.