On the subject of electron configurations and there resulting oxidation states. I hold correct the current theories that are responsible for building the electron configuration and giving an element its chemistry. They are:
1. Aufbau principle: (this means literally from german, to build up.) The electrons must completely fill an orbit before beginning to fill the next.
2. Pauli exclusion principle: This states that paired electron will have opposite spin
3. Octet rule: that the electrons will obey the geographical placements as governed by attractions and repulsion.
The chemistry of the atom is in its electron configuration. Nitrogen has multiple oxidation states because and can form many different compounds because of the affinity of the those electrons to share, be stolen, or be given based on the element(s) brought into reaction with it coupled with the appropriate energetic scheme. The atom is neutral in charge therefore the number of electrons must equal the number of protons. If neutrons are protons in disquise than that is fine; but, it doesn't change the behavior of the element in chemical reactions. Only nuclear force can reorient the nucleus. This is manifest be the proof that no known chemical reaction can make a nucleus change, i.e. reacting an element with another cannot make it radioactive or disappear (alchemists tried this and failed).
Heisenberg, electron cloud, electron wave, all of those theories don't really matter. I say this because our understanding of the chemistry of the elements is independant of the reasonings behind those reactions. Simple but elegant experiments performed by the true fathers of chemistry from Lavoisier to Seaborg have shown us that empirical data from chemical research can accurately predict the behavior of chemicals.
Yes, some elements have many oxidation states, but remember that electrons can bond in at least 4 known ways and quite possibly more as the elements get larger. Fundamental prinicples such as electron repulsion forces, van der Waals forces, electron screening (shielding) effects, etc. have predicted what we know about chemistry today. I am comfortable with this because chemists right now are using these modelling techniques to predict previously unmanufactured chemicals. When they see a chemical from these models, they can make that chemical and the properties they predicted are exhibited in the new molecule. That is significant proof that the current model, while incomplete, does at least seem to be on the right course. While all theory is open to assault, it is reviewed and tested and accepted by a scientific community that is generally accessible, at least in the particular field of chemistry, where a spirit of new discovery still exists. Astronomy and cosmology does have lots of room for holes in theories, but the tangible theories here on earth, where materials are constantly tested, imaged, and investigated, tends to make theories that are more sound. Notice that the theories in chemistry most under debate are ones proposed by physicists. I am sure many will scoff at my windy rhetoric here, but try to not take theory so lightly, it is never one persons whim when it is proposed. Also remember that the bakelite material that we are typing on was one of those predicted chemicals, properties, measurements and all.
MV
]