Reverse chemistry model?

[Arugela]

I've noticed in subjects it's convenient to reverse the logic and look at it at different points. This at minimum helps understand it's shape and form.

I'm watching this. What if we referse the orbital logic:

What if we assumed for instance that hydrogen was only 1 orbital in position 1. It can be positive or negative. Or that helium instead of 2 electrons has 0 electrons. Is there a nucleus with 0 electrons now. Or in that theory that would fit the opposite?

And the other reversal I saw so far would be that if the outer shells have the most electrons what if they are pushing out the inner sphere first. What if helium is actually a full set of electrons that easily pushes out the inner ring. It seems to have 1 electron because the outer layers push it out easily. And it's good as  fuel source because it's dense and not because it's light?

Or is it possible the inner layer is the most occupied and the atomic model is actually representing the missing electrons. Is there a supposed limit to layers that might say how many electrons are in the middle in such a situation?

The energy levels could easily be the result of missing or easily remove electrons as opposed to the capacity to hold them logically. The value could be a different quality. the outer shells could be the potential to hold and then the missing potential of the ring in practice. As opposed to it's actual held amount which seems to be the current model. IE helium could be missing 1 electron. Helium could be missing 2. Large atoms could actually be small atoms and be missing the stated electrons instead of holding them and you could be measuring the resulting force from the nucleus escaping and interacting with it's surroundings.

There are more ways to invert/reverse the theory. Do any explain any behavior better?

edit: Here is another model:

Protons are neutral and neutrons are positive magnetic. electrons are actually positive and negative. This is then why they attract in pairs. Not sure what makes them stick. Maybe another reversal of the logic? Is there more simplistic/common sense model based on any reversal combinations to why things act as they do? Do neutrons potentially push out negative electrons? what if protons are like an empty vacuum space or something that attracts the others.

It's possible some models would/could describe different behaviors/qualities better.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Arugela

[NFUN]

There is so much here that I'm forced to be succinct. The answer to I believe every single one of your points is "no", whether because what you said made no sense, is completely untethered from fact, or would fail in every way. Somebody with more patience can tackle them individually, but I think you'd be best served by reading up on the topic more and understanding what nearly literally any of it means before trying again

[Nuke]

ive heard it said that the periodic table is really just a quantum truth table.

[cubinator]

We can separate protons and neutrons and electrons to know how they act on their own. Protons have positive charge, and electrons negative. We can break apart protons and neutrons to know the quarks they're made of, and confirm those charges. We can image the atom orbitals to know that they have those shapes. 

(https://www.nature.com/articles/498009d)

All of chemistry also relies on the balance of electrons in their orbital clouds and protons in the nucleus. Nuclear fusion and fission theories also work based on these models.

[kerbiloid]

We can use negative numbers in chemical formulas to show absense of some element.

[KSK]

The problem with trying to apply 'reverse logic' to that video, is that it's almost entirely qualitative. The underlying logic behind those energy levels, sub-levels etc. is not discussed at all, and without some understanding of that underlying logic, applying 'reverse logic' is pretty much pointless and will result in conclusions which,  to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli (him of the Exclusion Principle), aren't even wrong.

Basically, the video is presenting a 'Bohr +' model, which is still picturing electrons as discrete particles, orbiting the nucleus.

The thing it completely misses - and understandably so given the audience it's likely pitched at - is that electrons also behave as waves and that a proper description of electrons in an atom requires quantum mechanics. The underlying mathematics are complicated (well they are to me) but one can write down an equation (the Schrodinger equation) which describes a given quantum mechanical system. and for the hydrogen atom, that equation can be solved exactly. For everything apart from hydrogen, the Schrodinger equation can't be solved exactly but you can calculate approximate solutions to arbitrary precision. Very simplistically you start with an approximate solution, then calculate successive corrections to that solution, each correction being smaller than the last. The corrections therefore converge towards a limit. For comparison, consider the following series:

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16...

which converges to 2.

Under a quantum mechanical formulation, an orbital is a wave function describing an electron in an atom, which can be used to calculate the probability of finding it at a given distance and position from the nucleus.  Orbitals are normally depicted as closed surfaces which define the space in which there's a given probability (say 90%) of finding the electron. As @cubinator pointed out, orbitals can be imaged, and those images are essentially probability 'heat maps'. The third image from the left  in @cubinator's post is particularly nice because it's very clearly an image of a wave.  Caveat - I don't know what the red depicts in those images since the probability of finding the electron at the centre of the atom should be zero.

Now, to fully describe an electron requires four properties:  energy, angular momentum, magnetic moment and spin, and each of those properties has a corresponding quantum number. At this point, the video is qualitatively correct - you get sets of orbitals defined by their principle quantum number n, and then two further quantum numbers l and m.

Orbitals for which l=0 are termed s orbitals and they're spherically symmetric. Orbitals for which l=1 are termed p orbitals, orbitals for which l=2 are termed d orbitals and orbitals for which l=3 are termed f orbitals. I imagine that you could continue this out to g, h or i orbitals but in practice, f orbitals are enough for the entire Periodic Table.  

m determines the number of a given type of orbital. For example p orbitals come in groups of three, d orbitals in groups of five.

Electrons can have also have one of two spin values +1/2 and -1/2.  

Finally, the Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons in an atom can have the same set of quantum numbers, which means that a given orbital (defined by given values of n, l and m) can only contain two electrons, one having spin +1/2 and the other having spin -1/2.

Edited January 30, 2022 by KSK