this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
54 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Science

8644 readers
41 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Or in other words which forces keep electrons in orbitals and prevent it from flying away or crashing into the nucleus according to modern understanding?

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are a lot of good answers here already, but I'll try to attack the question from a new angle.

Firstly, yes: they experience an attractive force from the nucleus, and would in principle have their lowest possible potential energy if they were located exactly in the nucleus. An equilibrium state is the state with lowest energy, so why aren't they exactly in the nucleus?

Consider that an electrons position and speed cannot be exactly defined at the same time (uncertainty principle). So an electron with an exact position could have any speed. If you compute the expectation value of a particles kinetic energy, when the particle can have any speed, you'll find that it's divergent (goes to infinity).

So: Because an electron with an exactly defined position must have infinite kinetic energy, the equilibrium state cannot be an electron with an exactly defined position, and so cannot be an electron exactly in the nucleus. So what do we do?

We have to make the electrons position "diffuse". Of course, that means it is no longer exactly inside the nucleus, so it gains some potential energy, but on the other hand it can move more slowly and has lower kinetic energy.

The equilibrium state is the state we find where the trade off between kinetic and potential energy gives us the lowest total energy, which is described as a 1s orbital. The electron is "diffuse" enough to have a relatively low kinetic energy, and "localised" enough to have a relatively low potential energy, giving as low total energy as possible.

Once you start adding more electrons you need to start taking Pauli exclusion into account, so I won't go there, but the same manner of thinking still essentially holds up.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So: Because an electron with an exactly defined position must have infinite kinetic energy

There are an infinite number of velocities I can use to get up off the couch right now.

That does not mean that I will get up off the couch at infinite velocity.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes, there are an infinite number of velocities you can use, but if you look at their distribution, you'll find that it quickly goes to zero somewhere around 1-2 m/s, so the expectation value of the velocity is convergent.

If you have an object with a velocity taken from a distribution that doesn't approach zero sufficiently fast as the velocity goes to infinity, the expectation value diverges. A simple example would be a person that would be half as likely to get up at a velocity of 2 m/s as 1 m/s, and half as likely to get up at 4 m/s as 2 m/s, etc.

The more mathematical version of the same argument is to compute the kinetic energy of a particle whose wavefunction is a delta pulse (i.e. a particle whose position is exactly defined), and you'll find that the particle has infinite energy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

You choose a velocity from an infinite number of options, but the electron exists in a superposition of all those options.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, of course. That's what keeps them bound together.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The follow up question would be the opposing force which keeps them in orbit(als)? This balance of force was called the planetary model which has this shortcoming that electrons might fall into the nucleus.

If electrons actually followed such a trajectory, all atoms would act is miniature broadcasting stations. Moreover, the radiated energy would come from the kinetic energy of the orbiting electron; as this energy gets radiated away, there is less centrifugal force to oppose the attractive force due to the nucleus. The electron would quickly fall into the nucleus, following a trajectory that became known as the "death spiral of the electron". According to classical physics, no atom based on this model could exist for more than a brief fraction of a second.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Northern_Alberta_Institute_of_Technology/CHEM1130_Principles_in_Chemistry_I/2%3A_Quantum_Mechanical_Picture_of_the_Atom/2.05%3A_The_Bohr_Atom

I am trying to recall what kind of forces enable the orbitals of electrons according to Quantum Mechanics.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Here is an explanation from part of that site:

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Why_atoms_do_not_Collapse

Summed up best as:

What this means is that within the tiny confines of the atom, the electron cannot really be regarded as a "particle" having a definite energy and location, so it is somewhat misleading to talk about the electron "falling into" the nucleus.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

the electron cannot really be regarded as a "particle" having a definite energy and location, so it is somewhat misleading to talk about the electron "falling into" the nucleus

Good way to put it. And if I recall correctly, electrons in "s" orbitals actually do spent a certain fraction of their time inside the nucleus.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

As I understand it, it's the quantum part of quantum mechanics.

Electrons can only have fixed energy states, they can only radiate or accept fixed sized packets of energy - a "quantum" of energy. So an electron that is hit with the correct sized quantum of energy can be excited up to the next orbital, and it will emit the same sized packet of energy when it returns to its ground state. So they can't gradually emit radiation and fall into the nucleus.

Eventually electrons should spontaneously decay but that's predicted to be in 10 to the power of 40 years or something like that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

electrons should spontaneously decay

Really? What is it hypothesized that they decay into?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I looked it up, after 6.6 x 10e28 years or so they are theorised to decay into neutrinos and photons.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Six hundred and sixty octillion years. That research is going to be hard to fund.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Huh, interesting. So would charge not be conserved in that process? Neither neutrinos nor photons are charged.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Charge conservation would indeed be violated, which is why this decay is not expected. Dave is mistaken: the half-life they're referring to is an experimental lower-bound, not a actual expected value.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Thanks, that makes more sense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Presumably there is a transformation of charge to energy which is then carried away by the photon, but all of this is beyond my understanding of the theories involved.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Charge conservation would unambiguously be violated, which is why this decay is not expected. The half-life you quote is an experimental lower-bound.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

They are not expected to decay. The half-life they're thinking of is a lower-bound based on current measurements, not an actual expected half-life.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There's kind of alot going on, but the shortest answer is "the electrostatic force between the positive nucleus and negative electron creates orbits in the same way that gravity allows a moon to orbit a planet". The electron is moving fast enough that it just "misses" the nucleus. At least, from a classical lens.

It gets more complicated when you introduce orbital angular momentum and start considering the magnetic effects of moving charges, and that's what leads to the funky non-spherical orbital shapes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

The language of forces and balancing forces comes from classical mechanics.

The particles interact via electromagnetic waves. You simply have to apply quantum mechanics and solve the Schrodinger equation. It's a different kind of thing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This video by TK^o^ explains it very well https://youtu.be/xINR4MoqYVc

The electron orbits are quantized, with a lower limit. As found by Neils Bohr. Classical theory would have the electron attracted into the nucleus in a tiny fraction of a second. His theory was not liked at the time and he faced a lot of push back, but they eventually accepted it as it’s true.