[iq160plus]

New to chemistry but one of the precepts threw me for a loop.  The instructor says 'that stable atoms are neutrally charged.  I was told that Protons have a + charge and electrons have a negative charge. Since there are the same number of protons as electrons the charge of one atom is neutral because they cancel each other out.'

My thoughts "Some atoms of course have multiple shells containing electrons.  Thus electrons are different distances away from the nucleus. Shouldn't electrons in shells farther from the neutron cause an overall less negative charge?  Example: Hydrogen with 1 shell is neutral.  However Sodium has 3 shells. Wouldn't the electrons out in that third shell have a less affect on the Sodium atom leaving it with a more positive charge than a Hydrogen atom?"

My question uses this for comparison: I come from an electronics background.  I know that there are laws of nature that compare the interaction between electrical flow (electron flow) and magnetism.  Magnetic fields are strongest at their core and weaken as the distance increases.  The inverse must be true since magnetism around a wire causes electron flow and electricity through a wire causes magnetism.

Where am I wrong in my thinking?  I know that electrons in the outer shells are the ones that are the essence of chemical interactions.  I just feel that every chemical reaction in essence creates electricity as well since the definition of electrical current is electron flow through the element that the wire is made up of.

As you can tell, I know just enough to mess up my brain. Teach me!

[magician4]

The statement " an atom is neutrally charged" depends on the distance and the relative size you have to the atom: human beings are huuuuge and far away, and hence to them ( and most of their instruments) they look pretty neutral.

If, however, it came down to 10^-12 m (or less), both with respect to size and distance, you might discover that electron density (negative) and the atom's core (positively charged) are unevenly distributed in space, yes.

So, you might call atoms "multipoles" on this scale.

However, "charge" is not about polarity, but refers to the "outer" net surplus of charge of a given object.
  you have to retreat from the atom to judge it's net-charge

... and from even a small distance all those negative charges and all those positive charges will fall into a mutual center of gravity: the core.
and there, form a slightly distant point of view, they cancel each other out: no net OUTER charge


regards

Ingo

[SoDope19]

While the example of a magnetic field can be plausible, it is not the best example. Electrons are circulating the nucleus and are at just the right distance to have an impact on the neutrality but not too close as to disturb the negative to negative interaction. Consider the international space station, the space station needs to maintain a certain speed to stay in orbit, more energy (speed) can push the shuttle higher up and have more kinetic energy, however, too much speed can cause the shuttle to drift out of orbit. Same goes for electrons, the electrons are at a consistent enough speed to not go adrift but they still all have an impact on the neutral state of the element. Now if say a photon hit the electron, the electron can become ionized and leave the atom as an ion.

[magician4]

Electrons are circulating the nucleus
(...)
 at a consistent enough speed to not go adrift (...)

Maybe I am wrong, but I seem to remember like a dozend good reasons why this isn't the case, one of them even being mentioned by good ol' Nils Bohr himself.

  To the best of my knowledge, there is not such thing as "pointtype electrons orbiting a core"


.. and I think that Schroedinger had the much better idea, talking 'bout "standing waves" and thatlike

regards

Ingo