Electron Pairing

Electrons are like women when they go to the bathroom. They're always in pairs.

Hund's Rules - Chemwiki

Electron Pairs, Outer Shells and Covalent Sharing - Physics Foru

Electrons come in pairs because in the orbital series you must have one up spin electron and then a down spin in an orbital

Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com

"Electrons are like women when they go to the bathroom. They're always in pairs."

That's so they can gossip about each other's proton partners. :)

Alright, Mr. Smartypants. What do electrons do in pairs in the bathroom? Talk about how excited they were before they let go with a photon?

Got me. I never go into the women's room

I'm staying neutron on this one...

Interesting...

I have really strong feeling about valence electrons, I do not know if its sane. But, seems to be logical.

The greater the group say group 8 - means out most orbitals has 8 electrons available for interaction - valence electrons usually dictates electrical and chemical property or interaction of materials.

Say Fe(Iron) group 8 is a better conductor than metals in lesser group.

Also, rust (Iron Oxide) is a poor conductor than pure Iron --since Iron with 8 valence electrons shared Oxygen with 6 valence electron, remaining 2 free valence electrons for interaction. Take another case like water H₂O - Hydrogen shared its one valence electrons with 6 for Oxygen, remaining 5 free valence electrons for chemical or electrical interaction.

I do not know if I am right, but it's seemingly true as per observation.

Comparing CO₂ and H₂O conductivity further example, by the concept of valence shell difference of reactants - I could guess H₂O is more conductive than CO₂.

I think it is a little more subtle than that. My understanding is that metals are conductive when their valence band overlaps with the conduction band. The degree of "closeness" between these two bands determines the mobility of electrons in a metal.

The conduction band is the energy required to release an electron from binding with its parent atom.

Conductivity occurs only when ions are present. Pure water undergoes a tiny amount of self-ionization:

H₂0 = H⁺ + OH^- The concentration of each ion is a mere 10^-7 g. ions per liter, so the conductivity is very low.

CO₂ doesn't ionize at all, so has no conductivity as a liquid.

Please do go and take the available opportunity to recycle your mind. First - fetch a good textbook from the library on general chemistry, and then read it for a while. Once you are thoroughed confused (which probably will not take long), get another one on the same subject and read it too. Keep reading new ones, until you get into your mind what electronic atomic structure is (or is supposed to to be), then you will gain insight into chemical bonding, covalency, ionic bonds, nobility, Bronsted and Lewis acids and the differences, chemical equilibrium, chemical potential, ferromagnetism, paramagnetism, and diamagnetism, atomic sprectra, dipole moments, and about one thousand other keywords.

No, not as you might think.

When we speak of a spin of an electron we are not talking about a physical spin, but a magnetic state of the electron. Electrons can have one of two spin states.

Electrons do have a magnetic momentum, which is where the analogy of a physically spinning magnet is drawn, but the electron does not actually physically spin.

Note that a characteristic spin state of an electron can only be one of two states, up or down (+1/2 or -1/2). This is also unlike classical physics and is where the term 'quantum' comes in because it never transitions to zero or any other spin state in between.

Also, flipping a spin from -1/2 to +1/2 and back to -1/2 does not get you to the exact same state you were when you started.

The spin property of elementary particles is simply not the way we think it would be in a classical world, its behavior is simply weird, but quantum physics is a paradigm shift in thinking anyway and it befuddles most people when they are exposed to that weirdness.

Hmmm...are these definitions archaic then?

"In quantum mechanics and particle physics, spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, composite particles (hadrons), and atomic nuclei."

"In physics, angular momentum, moment of momentum, or rotational momentum is a measure of the amount of rotation an object has, taking into account its mass, shape and speed. It is a vector quantity that represents the product of a body's rotational inertia and rotational velocity about a particular axis."

I do not think the definitions are achaic, as these arise from first-principle attempts to solve the wave equation for these. It appears that energy resonance is importance not just in chemistry (as in chemical reactions), but maybe more importantly it is known to take place within the cores of myriad of stars in the universe in terms of nuclear resonant energy in multi-body, multi-step burning of fuels other than protons. In some nuclear reactions, I should not be surprised at all to learn that some processes would be enhanced by spin conservation (including emitted photons as gamma rays), whilst others might be considered to be "forbidden transitions", just as some electronic transitions are in atoms and molecules, and would thus occur at a much lower branching ratio, or not at all.

Yes, elementary particles have angular momentum, but it is not the same thing as the angular momentum of say a spinning basketball.

The particles do not physically spin to get that momentum, it is a property derived from their quantum spin state.

If you try to do the math for the angular momentum of an electron with a radius of 3 • 10^-15 m and a mass of 9 • 10^-31 kg, the electron would need to spin at multiple times the speed of light to produce the equivalent angular momentum of an electron.

We know that can't be true and we also know that a physical spin on a basketball can have more than two states.

I know this seems confusing, but angular momentum for an electron or any elementary particle is not the same thing as the classical physics we learned about in high school.

Actually, I didn't take physics in high school, it was in my senior year at IU Bloomington but it was in 1970 so what I actually took is now termed 'The History of Physics'.

I think that was the year they figured out that a neutrino isn't affected by magnetic fields.

Nonetheless,you are correct in that a particle that is supposed to be going the speed of light would have to travel faster than that to creat an orbital path.

However, the generally accepted theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light only applies to objects that have Mass because it relies on E = MC²

If an electron is not an actual particle the constraint would not apply to it's orbital speed.

Nothing we know of exceeds C.

There are a class of hypothetical particles called tachyons from bosonic string theory, but these have never been observed in the lab or in nature (nor anything else substantiating string theory for that matter).

All known energy that we can detect travels at or below C.

Anything faster,we cannot detect.

And for practical puposes,we can state that nothing exists above this threshold.

However, the spectrum may exceed our grasp,and there may be much more to reality

than our narrow bandwidth of observation.

For instance,"spooky action at a distance" of entangled pairs.

They communicate in "NOW TIME",to use your words.

If time slows to a virtual stop for anything trveling at C,then what is time to an

electron?

If a particle could travel faster than C,then only one particle would be required to

create our universe,because it could be everywhere, at what appeared to us, at once.

Like the scan lines of a TV appear to create a full image because they scan faster

than our retina (due to retinal memory) can process the information between scans.

It would only drop down below C when required to give the illusion that we perceive as reality.

As the Monk said to the hot dog vendor:"Make me one with everything."

We may in fact already be.

http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/electron-is-not-a-fundamental-particle/

I ask only because I am honestly not certain, but when you state that electrons do not actually physically spin, I have to wonder how we can know that, with as much certainty as you made that statement. Is there some way that we have of knowing that as fact? I get your point, that 'physical spin' is not the attribute that defines the quantum state; but, one has to wonder what exactly are an electron's physical qualities?

There are two schools of thought on this. One assigns a physical radius to an electron at approximately 3 • 10^-15 meters (classical atomic physics). The other looks at it as a point charge with no dimension.

The latter definition is used for building mathematical models where the physical attributes do not matter or it is assigned to sub-atomic particles that are considered to be physically point charges such as leptons, quarks, and bosons. Particles that fall outside that category are called extended particles. However, electrons are considered a point-like charge.

The problem is that electrons have mass and if they had no size they would have infinite density, which they don't, so the whole mess gets very confusing when you try to wrap your brain around it.

At this point we are trying to model a point charge with an electric field sitting the space (which is really a quantum foam).

Are we sure that point charges are really of no size? No, point-like charges may some day be found to be actually extended particles with smaller thingies inside them, but so far we regard them as indivisible in the quantum realm.

point-like particles are essentially mathematical abstractions with zero size, however, these particles do have an extended effect around them such as the electric field about an electron.

I am thinking a loose analogy here between classical physics and quantum physics is like Newtonian gravity versus Relativity. Each has its place, but it can get confusing when you accidentally start mixing them up.

http://www.mpg.de/7961020/electron-mass

Recent work and a more perfect measurement of the mass of an electron.

But still, they still have to measure it 'at speed' so I'm not sure if they deduct the increase in mass it's inherent 'nearly speed of light' mass increase from the measurement.

Yes, the zero dimensional point black holes.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804

Perhaps we are limited by measuring faster than light 'matter' by our ability to design anything that can do that right now.

I just read Dr. Ronals L. Mallett's book 'Time Traveller'. It was interesting to see his progression up through the ranks of theoritical physicists as well as his theories.

It would make sense that Quantum Computers can solve problems before they are turned on if they actually could send the answer back in time to before the switch was thrown. :)

tachyons explained

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=l9aLyfFnfOU&x-yt-ts=1421914688

Nice composit pic of the boundaries of an electron's orbit here in 2D:

http://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901

Here is some more real quantum weirdness for you:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/23/quantum_computing/

Very interesting topic. I too have wondered why protons do not repel too in the core of the atom? Not heard of spin being associated with protons. I am just curious. At one time I was trying to understand what makes some materials magnetic and some non-magnetic. If using group 3 4 and 5, one could come up with semiconductors and a whole lot of devices, can we similarly have semi-magnetics?- May be some day we will have magnetic switches like semiconductor switches, or uni-directional magnetic components. Many electric circuit components have been developed, but we do not have any magnetic circuit components.

I think all you need to know about inter nuclear forces is in Wikipedia:

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

No point in me re-hashing for you.

I would hope that is not ALL we need to know as a great many people will be out of work from everything having already been figured out! :)

Actually, protons do repel, but the strong nuclear force has taken over dominance by that point, and there are usually as many neutrons, slightly more in the nucleus. Here is something else to think on...

Why do many unstable isotopes up to a certain ratio of M/Z decay by α (alpha) particle emission, but as M/Z continues to increase for a given Z (element), and the isotopes become more and more unstable, the trend progresses to more β- decay than alpha, and at some ratio, exotic decays such as β+β+ (double positron) become observable (not dominant pathway, just observable). Does this mean that continually adding more neutrons results in destabilization of the nuclear symmetry, a severe perturbation of nucleon wavefunction?

Has anyone here seen "recent" data suggesting that Rutherford's experiment on nuclear density/ helium nuclei scattering was only correct in the low energy limit, and not correct at all in the limit of 20MeV alpha? The latter data shows clearly that the nucleus is a bit larger than postulated by Rutherford, and that some unusual wavefunctions are the answer to this, and they show a hole in the density at the center of where the nucleus would be if a point source of mass. So now we have oblate spheroidal nuclei, dumbbell shaped nuclear wavefunctions, etc. There is not much telling where this all leads.

Not many years ago, they would have laughed to scorn anyone suggesting the "triple-alpha" pathway to carbon in an aging star, but not anymore. The almost exact energy resonance was found that could arrive at just precisely the ratio of carbon and oxygen present in atomic abundance that we experience. A value of resonance energy different from the observed, and the branching ratios would all have changed, and there would be no life on this or any other planet based on carbon and oxygen.

"the attractive gravitational force between protons is some 10^-38 times weaker than the electrostatic repulsive force"

Got that from here:

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module%205/nuclear_properties.htm

So perhaps the forces that hold the nucleus of an atom together come from the outside rather than the inside of the atom...

Gravity has nothing to do with it. Look up Strong Nuclear Force.

That's the binding force for the nucleus of an atom.

Did I mention gravity? Is this that 'Quantum Entanglement' I've read so much about working today? :)

Here's a simple explanation: Electrons in an atom can only occupy discrete energy levels. Only two electrons with opposite spins (a pair) can share an energy level. Since the electrons will want to give off excess energy and drop to the lowest available energy level, the electrons tend to get paired.

Any idea why electron pairs spins at different direction?

Where do electrons go at lowest energy level the outer or inner orbit?

It's a game of chance as to which spin direction you have in a box of electrons.

The spin direction can change as the electron will either align with or against an applied magnetic field.

"game of chance

Spin the Electron?

Electron roulette.

The lowest energy is the inner orbital. Helium is the first element with a full orbital, with two electrons in the inner shell.

It you apply energy, the electrons can go to a higher level temporarily. When they drop back down, the give the energy back in the form of a photon. Because these energy levels are fixed, the photons (whose wavelength is determined by energy) will be a definite color. This causes the lines in the spectrum of an excited gas (such as neon lamps).

The direction of electron spin is random. There is apparently no reason for the way they are.

I don't know why you were marked so heavily as off topic. I think it is not.

We might want to look at Bell's theorem for some insight here.

I agree with your cause and effect in a classical physics world, but that may not be any more valid from a perspective on non-deterministic behavior than Newton's Law of gravity is to Einstein's theories on relativity.

In the quantum world we are faced with a great deal of uncertainty and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may be yet another demonstration that there are limits to just how accurately you can predict things.

In that instance we have an inverse ratio between knowing the precision of particle's position versus the same particle's velocity. The better precision we know of one attribute results in the lessor precision of the other.

To the best of my knowledge, quantum fluctuations in a vacuum appear as a non-deterministic event as well. Maybe they are not truly non-detrministic, but we have yet to show that is the case in theory or practice.

Quantum mechanics is well outside the domain of classical Newton physics. Here the argument is between the practicality of classical physics in the everyday world versus the blatant inconsistencies with Newtonian physics in the quantum world.

Consider that a ruler (actually called a scale) is a imprecise instrument, but still extremely useful for its intended design. Classical physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are no different in this regard. While a laser displacement sensor may be able to achieve 0.01 micron accuracy it is many times unneeded and impractical for your kitchen remodeling where a Lufkin tape measure will serve well.

I do not believe there is a disconnect from quantum to classical physics,

but rather,as you say, a limit to the amount of information that we may know about an

object.

This limitation , I think, is an indication of our own current technology,not an indication

of fact.

As I mentioned,we used to think radioactive decay was random, but we now know it

is not.

The fact that a probability can be assigned a value proves that it is not truly

random.

I guess it is not really what you see, it is how you look at it.

I understand the temptation to say that as we are so bound to a classical physics cause and effect world. It is hard to wrap your brain around anything else but determinism if all variables were accounted for. It just seems sane and logical.

However, quantum physics has shown us otherwise (at least strongly hinted otherwise) with quantum indeterminacy.

Essentially, the specific state of a system can not determine a unique set of values for all of its properties. This may seem counterintuitive, but there has been much work on the subject, so this is not idle thoughts from some bar stool.

However, the jury is still out and I don't know of any evidence that has disproved either a determinist universe or indeterminacy.

In another twist, we know that no computer can produce a truly random number, but pseudo-random in nature. So, when a numerical set from a computer is compared to a new approach called algorithmic randomness, which comes from observing quantum processes like the effect of a semi-silvered mirror on a photon.

The data set is uniquely different than those generated by computer and are, as of now, the gold standard for a truly random number. This is why, in part, quantum encryption of data is the hot field for privacy.

Quantum physics also raises questions in regard to the definition of random. Given a quantum binary state of 1s and 0s can be in both states at the same time, how do you go about discerning whether order from disorder? It is not really clear what each should look like.

The crux of my point is that we can not simply look at the world only through a classical physics prism. We must include the quantum world if we want to be fair about it and the quantum world tends to uproot many things we hold as immutable on a macro scale.

Saying that all things can be deterministic in nature appears be looking at the universe with one eye closed.

This is surely "bold talk from a one-eyed fat man",but if I accept the quantum theory in whole,then reality itself is only observational.

Basically,if I can't observe it,it does not exist (at least for me,in that sense).

Spooky!

So it all boils down to information as processed by our brain,being input by our senses.

This limits our universe to our five senses.

We have devices that can enhance our senses,but in the end, it has to be

"down graded" to accommodate our biological input devices (5 senses).

So if we can influence the condition of an experiment by observing it,can we also

influence the results by merely thinking about observing it?

What if the experiment is viewed from 1 light year away;when does the result occur?

When the sentient person observes it (1 year later),or when the result is transmitted to the person?

Or would the disturbance require a 2 year round trip time to influence the experiment?

I read about a quantum computer that produced a result before it was actually run.

Merely the fact that it existed was sufficient.

REAL SPOOKY!

And spooky falls outside of normal scientific discipline,IMHO.

"All the world's a stage"- Shakespeare may have been right.

I have certainly had things in my life that seem to have occurred to amuse someone

that arranged it for their humor or entertainment.

As we progress more and more toward the capability of designing a sentient robot,we

realize that we may be one ourselves.

How do we really know our past?

It is by memories.

And we know how easy it is to change memories in a computer.

For all we really know,we may have been alive only a few minutes,and all of our

memories are really illusions.

Our brains could really be like a radio receiver tuned to a certain channel,but capable of many.

For instance,a person gets in a wreck,and suddenly can play a piano,which he never

could do before.

Or a woman that suddenly speaks a foreign language after a head injury.

Maybe their brains got knocked off channel.

The abilities had to be there,within their brains before the trauma.

It really is a much stranger universe than we can imagine.

We base so much of our understanding of the atom, electron energy within the atom, and the structure of the atomic nucleus upon research dating back to the late part of the 19th Century, note particularly the Helium nucleus scattering experiments of Rutherford, wherein it was concluded the tiny dimensions of the atomic nucleus.

That work was all done with relatively low energy Alpha particles (~4-5 MeV), but when the scattering experiment is repeated with >25MeV Alpha, there is a somewhat controversial result that reveals more about the nuclear structure, and it appears to be larger than the original estimates. This is of key interest in nuclear reactions involving transmutations of nuclei into other elements.

Never assume "we" know all that there is to know. Science (and engineering) are supposed to be quests to advance knowledge, both theortical and applied. Seek the truth and the truth will find you. We should always question reality, and attempt to advance our grasp of it, by expanding the frontiers of what is observable, and relating that back to what was "known" before.

Have any of you ever heard of quantum echo events? Apparently this has something to do with nonlinear optics, something about spin "memory", if my memory serves me in regards to this special topic.

Good hunting to all. May at least some of your questions have good answers. May none of your results be a cause to stay awake at night.

I have a theory that the universe is just a computer simulation and Quantum Mechanics is a bug in the program.

I like that.

"Wolfgang Pauli first proposed the existence of neutrinos in 1930. He believed that they were necessary to explain some problems that scientists had noticed with beta decay. During beta decay, an atom's nucleus sheds excess energy by converting a neutron into a proton and an electron and, as scientists now know, an antineutrino. Scientists noticed that when atoms of a particular isotope underwent beta decay, they always lost the same amount of energy, but the electrons were ejected with a range of energies. It appeared as if energy was being destroyed in the reaction, violating a concept known as the conservation of energy. They also noticed that the ejected electron and the recoiling nucleus didn't always move apart on a straight line, but sometimes did so at an angle. This violated another concept known as the conservation of momentum. Believing that the two conservation laws were valid, Pauli stated than an undetected particle must be produced during beta decay, one that would carry away the missing energy and momentum. Neutrinos were detected experimentally by Clyde Cowan and Fred Reines at the Savannah River reactor in South Carolina in 1956."

I stole this from somewhere as a starting point...

Now, suppose that the trillions of nutrinos coming from every direction in the universe actually are actualy the energy source that keeps elcetrons moving and stops them from early decay.

Kinda like that guy who spun plates on tops of sticks on The Ed Sullivan Show. As got more and more plates spinning, he would have to run around and give the wobbly ones a couple of speed up taps to keep them going.

Otherwise, what are nutrinos for and why are they (as anti-nutrinos) ejected during beta decay? And where did they come from in the first place?

They aren't really included on the current guest list to the sub-atomic nuclear party going on inside an atom...

I seem to have forgotten, but does anyone really know where the myriad of neutrinos is originating? The sun? The general cosmos? Does Beta emission take place with conservation of spin angular momentum in the "system" consisting of the nucleus, and all the emitted particles?

Have your heard of double proton emission? Apparently, isotopes with an excess of protons over neutrons (that have even numbered Z) and are near the proton "drip line" in the table of isotopes, mostly have an energy favorable double proton emission, and an energy unfavorable single proton emission, such that two protons are simultaneously emitted. Google "double proton emission" and you should find at least one really outstanding paper on that subject.

I do not believe electrons require anything to keep them in their orbitals other than a nucleus to be bound to. There are intrinsically correct models (at least for hydrogen atoms), with the rest requiring perturbation theory to arrive at something suitably consistent with atomic (and ionic) spectra. For the nucleus itself, perturbation theory does not work (don't ask me how come), but it is complicated by the energetics of the nucleus, its size, and the masses of the particles comprising the nucleus. Not only that, electrons are fermions in the sense of half-integer spin angular momentum, and the particles in the nucleus may represent an ensemble of fermions in one consideration, and then be Bosons for the next. I don't even think I can begin to get my mind around all that.

The fact that one can only estimate the position of an electron in an atom makes perfect sense because it is going 3 different directions at once as well as reacting to to it's nucleus and other electons in it's own orbit and the adjacent orbits and outside magnetic stimuli, and doing it at the speed of light.

You can only kinda guess where it was. Plus it doesn't have a half-life we know of, not yet at least, maybe next year we'll know for sure.

So, it is the ultimate perpetual motion machine!

I think SuperNova 1987A spewed out a "torrent" them as a pre-cursor to it's big event. Apparently supernovas happen all the time and are basically the source of all the godzillions of nutrinos flying around in every direction.

Apparently, the electon emitted from Beta decay is created inside the nucleus.

http://www.ph.surrey.ac.uk/partphys/chapter5/BetaDecay.html

Heisenber's uncertainty is the result of a random occurence when a particle that has spin, vibration, and orbit and the directional vector of the vibration momentarily comes tangent to orbit and creates a random 'wobble'.

Do you have a link to that definition?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/1069349/Re-Electron-Pairing

:-)

Circular.

Supposedly every electron has a definite energy right? As for inner orbital electron say 1s, 2s, 2p but in the presence of protons in the nucleus-the charge was neutralized more at the inner orbitals. Farther away orbitals from the center of the nucleus, electron are more free(That is why, electrons can easily be removed(ionized&deionized) and added at outermost orbits. Unbounded by their orbitals, the absolute value of their charge is at maximum without any electrostatic force acting on them, do you agree, Rix?

Fact is you will need a greater energy to push electrons out of their orbital in the inner orbits other than at outermost orbits. Since inner orbital electrons are attracted or bounded by unlike charge of the protons.

Do not even try to think of "electron orbits", as it has absolutely nothing to do with classical Newtonian Mechanics in that sense. Think of it electron orbitals which are not circles around an atom, but are more like clouds of probability density at which the electron may be located (within limits of its momentum being known to a fine extent). Orbitals exist in several different symmetries, something like a balloon, then like a dumbbell, then like a bunch of balloons tied closely together, etc. etc.

The important thing also is that atomic orbitals apply to atoms only, and it takes some sort of "hybridization" of interacting orbitals to produce the actual molecular orbitals of a molecule from the simple to the very complex.

Spinning in opposite directions keeps them from losing energy.

Others are hitting all around it, and it does have to do with Exclusion energy (and that no two electrons may occupy the same precise wavefunction for the Molecular Orbitals involved, however they may co-exist at a lower energy in the same orbital as long as they possess opposite spin angular momentum.

Imagine a room full of jugglers,each having a dozen balls in the air at the same

time.

Each ball is half full of smaller balls,that are being bounced around inside as the balls

are thrown.

Now imagine the jugglers rotating their set of ball over to the next juggler,or to the

juggler across the room.

Now try to predict the motion and position,and future motion and position of any one

of the smaller balls.

This would be very difficult.

It would be much simpler to predict the positon and motion of one of the larger balls.

About all that you could say about the smaller balls is that they reside within the

confines of one of the larger balls.

As the room gets bigger and the number if jugglers increase so does the complexity.

Likewise with molecules.

Put the jugglers on roller blades skating on the inside surface a large enough sphere juggling oblong spinning water balloons filled with Mexican Jumping Beans and you have it!

Because they are disguised Latter Day Saints Missionaries.

Another one: A pair of electrons walks into a bar....

silly man, electrons do not walk, they conduct themselves. In spite of that, one electron says to the other at the door, " OK Moe you spin that way when we go in, and I will spin the other way", says Joe. That is how electrons avoid flying glass in a bar. Makes sense, does it not?

Using first priciples,can someone explain contact charge transfer (static electricity?)

It is just really, really small lightning bolts!

"......using first principles"

Also try to explain hydrodynamics,or solitons using only first principles.

No analogies.

Anyone want to try to explain these using first priciples?

Thanks in advance for all input.

All normal matter consists of electrons, protons and neutrons in a nucleus, with the electrons in atomic or molecular orbitals associated with the various nuclei in a material. For static electrical charge imbalance to take place (the building up of a static potential difference between two materials, there must be contact between the material surfaces. If one of the materials (or both) is a conductor of electricity, then surface charge transfer is immediately neutralized by conduction back to the other object. If both materials are insulators, then there is a better chance of charges (electrons) being transferred from one material to the other (rubbing appears to increase the area of contact where charge transfer is able to take place.

The charges are somewhat immobilized as the materials are incapable to a large degree of allowing charges to conduct from one point to another on the material surface, at least until the material is brought near a zero field (grounded conductor). At approach to a grounded conductor, the charges are "flipped" along the surface of the insulating material, until the field gradient stabilizes this movement. Upon contact with the conducting surface, or if the potential is high enough to support ionization in air, there will either be a spark, or contact conduction into the grounded object.

The reason for charge transfer to take place in the beginning are somewhat cloudy, but appear to be related to the differences in ionization potential for two dissimilar insulators, the relative surface area of the materials (i.e. a rod of glass or amber and a fur pelt from a mammal), and the rate at which different areas of the two materials are in contact.

As far as I know, there is no strikingly "first principle" explanation of the triboelectric effect.

Thanks for the feedback.

That is my point exactly:Some things cannot be explained by first principles,like solitons,hydrodynamics,etc.,and probably never will be expalainable by first priciples.

There are many other processes that can only be explained by "behaves as if" or analogous comparisons to other processes,or "because that is the accepted theory."

It does not mean the therories do not work, but rather that we do not understand all we know about some things.

Actually, static electricity comes from free electrons dropping out of the ionisphere and actually making it to the ground in dry weather.

In humid weather they get caught up in the moisture in the atmosphere usually causing lightning in the storm clouds.

Hence, the name Ion-osphere.

This is the source of Tesla 'free' electricity as opposed to what we pay for today which is magnetically induced.