Why Does an Excited Electron Decay to the Ground State?

In summary, an excited electron in an atom decays to the ground state because energy eigenstates are unstable and even the slightest pertubation will cause the photon to decay.
  • #1
K8181
19
0
Can someone please explain why an excited electron in an atom decays to the ground state, if energy eigenstates are stationary states.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
These stationary states are unstable, and even the slightest pertubation will cause the photon to decay. This is analagous to standing a pencil on its tip: if you balance it dead right it will stay upright (a stationary state), but any slight pertubation (say, a slight breeze) will cause it to fall.

Claude.
 
  • #3
When you excite an electron via radiation or any wave carrying some threshold energy , the electron absorbs the energy. Initially electron is in an orbit with energy -E , so the electron has also got same energy -E , now when it gains some energy 'K' , its energy becomes -(E+K) which is less than the initial E because of the minus sign. As lower energy levels are more stable and have lesser energy , the electron excites itself from its initial state to a more stable state by gaining certain amount of needed energy from the radiation.
 
  • #4
Dr.Brain said:
When you excite an electron via radiation or any wave carrying some threshold energy , the electron absorbs the energy. Initially electron is in an orbit with energy -E , so the electron has also got same energy -E , now when it gains some energy 'K' , its energy becomes -(E+K) which is less than the initial E because of the minus sign. As lower energy levels are more stable and have lesser energy , the electron excites itself from its initial state to a more stable state by gaining certain amount of needed energy from the radiation.

You have all this reversed. When an electron absorbs a photon, it gains energy -- meaning the energy would become less negative, -(E-K) -- and gets excited to a higher energy state. In the case that the OP is discussing, the electron is emitting a photon, so it's losing energy, -(E+K). Also, lower energy levels are not always more stable. In general, the lowest energy level is the most stable, however.
 
  • #5
It is not the electron that is excited but the atom to which the electron 'belongs'

It is important to realize that these electronic energy levels that we all talk about only arise because of the fact that the electron has an interaction with the atomic nucleus. In other words, the energy levels to which electrons will jump when excitation or de-excitation occurs only exist because these electrons are 'part of an atom'

De-excitation occurs because it lowers the associated potential energy : ie things get more stable...(this is a general formulation and there are those exceptions that confirm this rule)

marlon

ps : what did i read about a photon decaying ?
 
  • #6
K8181 said:
Can someone please explain why an excited electron in an atom decays to the ground state, if energy eigenstates are stationary states.
As the name implies, the 'ground state' is the basic state of an atom. Each type of atom has its own unique ground state. With respect to the last electron, all lower energy states are filled with other electrons. An excited electron will exist in upper energy states only briefly before dropping back to the ground state and emitting a characteristic photon. That's just the way it is.
 
  • #7
marlon said:
It is not the electron that is excited but the atom to which the electron 'belongs'

If there is only one electron in the atom, don't you think this point is largely semantic? There is some coupling between the electron and the nucleus, but its a very small effect. The wave function is basically that of an electron in a potential well.
 
  • #8
SpaceTiger said:
If there is only one electron in the atom, don't you think this point is largely semantic? There is some coupling between the electron and the nucleus, but its a very small effect. The wave function is basically that of an electron in a potential well.

What i wanted to point out is the fact that these energy levels come from the fact that the electron interacts with the nucleus. You mentioned it yourself : an electron in a potential well. Single electrons don't have these energy levels for the obvious reasons. That is just what i wanted to clarify : the energylevels are not inherent to the actual electrons but to the electron-nucleus interaction.

regards
marlon
 
  • #9
marlon said:
What i wanted to point out is the fact that these energy levels come from the fact that the electron interacts with the nucleus. You mentioned it yourself : an electron in a potential well.

But by that definition, it would then be improper to say that a planet could be excited to a higher-energy orbit because, after all, the planet wouldn't be orbiting without the sun. You'd have to say, instead, that the solar system is excited to a different energy state. I have a feeling that dynamicists would look at you strange if you used this terminology.

I know our argument is largely semantic, and I'm not trying to say that your terms are even incorrect, I just want to defend the terminology of myself and others. I often hear ISM physicists talk in terms of what happens to the "electron" in an atom, rather than always discussing in terms of the atom as a whole. This description is often more helpful for understanding what's going on inside of the atom, even if the language is somewhat imprecise.
 
  • #10
SpaceTiger said:
But by that definition, it would then be improper to say that a planet could be excited to a higher-energy orbit because, after all, the planet wouldn't be orbiting without the sun. You'd have to say, instead, that the solar system is excited to a different energy state. I have a feeling that dynamicists would look at you strange if you used this terminology.

I really don't know why you bring in this analogy. Anyway it is totally wrong because the phenomena we are talking about (electrons in atoms) are totally different compared to celestial motions. I mean, let us not start mixing QM with classical mechanics. That is why this analogy is erroneous.

I know our argument is largely semantic,
It certainly is not. I am just presenting the QM description of an atom and how it is responsible for the specific electronic energy levels.

I often hear ISM physicists talk in terms of what happens to the "electron" in an atom, rather than always discussing in terms of the atom as a whole. This description is often more helpful for understanding what's going on inside of the atom, even if the language is somewhat imprecise.

It is fundamental that people understand how these electronic energy levels arise. You cannot deny the fact that a Fermi-gass has different behavior then electrons 'inside' atoms. Besides, how else would we describe the "plethora" of atomic spectra that are known to us ?

regards
marlon
 
  • #11
marlon said:
I really don't know why you bring in this analogy. Anyway it is totally wrong because the phenomena we are talking about (electrons in atoms) are totally different compared to celestial motions. I mean, let us not start mixing QM with classical mechanics. That is why this analogy is erroneous.

We're discussing the distinguishability of the individual components of the system, not their behavior. An electron does indeed behave differently in an atom than a planet does around the sun, but you haven't properly defended the necessity for combining them into a single conceptual entity. The only reason you've given so far is:

the energylevels are not inherent to the actual electrons but to the electron-nucleus interaction

Thus, my analogy is appropriate, as this fact is also true of planets around the sun.


It is fundamental that people understand how these electronic energy levels arise. You cannot deny the fact that a Fermi-gass has different behavior then electrons 'inside' atoms.

I don't see your point. An object will of course behave differently when put under different external restrictions. That doesn't mean, however, that it's inappropriate to consider it as a separate entity.
 
  • #12
SpaceTiger said:
We're discussing the distinguishability of the individual components of the system, not their behavior.

Yes we very much are...
Again, the electronic levels very much explain the actual electronic behavior. You cannot talk about these energy levels without explaining where they came from and why they exist. I challenge you to explain this without bringing in the atomic nucleus.


Besides this 'distinguishability' does not exist in QM.


Thus, my analogy is appropriate, as this fact is also true of planets around the sun.
No it is not. You are referring to a classical system. If you would apply this system onto the electrons and the nucleus, you would not even have stable atoms. It is this way of thinking that gives rise to questions like 'why doesn't an electron crash into a nucleus and why doesn't it radiate ?' I have been answering such misconceptions ad nauseum...

I don't see your point. An object will of course behave differently when put under different external restrictions.

My point was that free electrons are NOT the same as electrons in an atom. You cannot just talk about some electron and its 'possible' energy levels because in the end people will ask : where do these energy levels come from ?

That doesn't mean, however, that it's inappropriate to consider it as a separate entity.

Separate entity ? What do you mean ?

marlon
 
  • #13
marlon said:
Yes we very much are...
Again, the electronic levels very much explain the actual electronic behavior. You cannot talk about these energy levels without explaining where they came from and why they exist. I challenge you to explain this without bringing in the atomic nucleus.

Again, I challenge you to explain the energy of Pluto without invoking the sun. This is beside the point.


Besides this 'distinguishability' does not exist in QM.

How can you say that? The entire concept of the Pauli Exclusion Principle is based on the distinction between distinguishable and indistinguishable particles.


No it is not. You are referring to a classical system. If you would apply this system onto the electrons and the nucleus, you would not even have stable atoms. It is this way of thinking that gives rise to questions like 'why doesn't an electron crash into a nucleus and why doesn't it radiate ?' I have been answering such misconceptions ad nauseum...

You seem to be missing the crux of the analogy, as there is no logical necessity for the above to be true for my argument to work. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I know that classical laws do not describe the electron's wave function in an atom. I know that it doesn't "orbit". Rather, here is what happened:

1) You said that an electron and proton cannot be considered as separate (distinguishable) when part of an atom.
2) I asked you to explain why.
3) You said " the energy levels are not inherent to the actual electrons but to the electron-nucleus interaction".
4) I gave an example of a system in which the components were considered separate, despite the above being true.

Note that the classical-quantum distinction does not come into this anywhere, nor do I suggest that electrons should be treated classically. If you think there is some crucial aspect of the quantum nature of particles that supports your argument further and renders my analogy inappropriate, I'm willing to hear it, but most of the things mentioned so far are not relevant to what we're discussing.


My point was that free electrons are NOT the same as electrons in an atom.

Indeed, their wave functions are different, but we still call them "electrons". We still talk about electrons being ejected from atoms, we still talk about electrons in energy levels, valence shells, etc. It abounds in the literature of many fields. The point is that no essential feature of the atom is lost by characterizing it as an "electron interacting with a nucleus". The only difference is that the electron is now represented by a wave function rather than a point particle with definite momentum and position.


You cannot just talk about some electron and its 'possible' energy levels because in the end people will ask : where do these energy levels come from ?

And you simply answer, "the interaction of the electron with the nucleus".
 
Last edited:
  • #14
SpaceTiger said:
Again, I challenge you to explain the energy of Pluto without invoking the sun. This is beside the point.

But this is very much the point. I asked you a specific question which you could not answer. Ofcourse not, because it is not possible. I really think that you still are not getting what i am trying to say. My point is that electrons in atoms exhibit their energy levels because of interactions with the nucleus, eg : L-S-coupling or Coulombic-interaction. You cannot just speak about 'exciting an electron' to some higher energy level.


So when a photon of the right energy hits an atom, it doesn't "excite" an electron, it excites the WHOLE ATOM. The energy states that the electron can occupy is a result of the combination of the nucleus and the electron, not just the electron alone. As a proof : a free electron has no such energy states. This is why i asked you about electrons in ayoms and free electrons.

So the nucleus plays a significant role in forming those energy states for the electron to occupy. It is the atom that is excited upon photon absorption, not the electron.


How can you say that? The entire concept of the Pauli Exclusion Principle is based on the distinction between distinguishable and indistinguishable particles.

You cannot distinguish between different electrons that make up any Fermi-gass...What is your point ? All electrons obey this very same Pauli principle, so how can it be used to distinguish between electrons.


to the electron-nucleus interaction".
4) I gave an example of a system in which the components were considered separate, despite the above being true.

But in the example that you gave, isn't there an interaction going on that determins how the bodies move and what energy they exhibit ? I think so...So i really don't see the justification for your analogy.

Besides, i never said that electrons and protons cannot be treated as two single entities. Again, what i said is that the energy levels of electrons in atoms are determined by their interaction with the actual nucleus. Why is this so hard to get ? It's quite elementary if you think about it...

And you simply answer, "the interaction of the electron with the nucleus".
:) YES, it's better then not being able to answer the actual question isn't it ? Ofcourse if people want a full blown justification of this, then we both know there is only one option.

regards
marlon
 
Last edited:
  • #15
marlon said:
But this is very much the point. I asked you a specific question which you could not answer.

I assume you're referring to the bit about the challenge to explain the energy levels without the atomic nucleus. Of course you need the nucleus to explain the energy levels, but, as I said in my original post, the nucleus itself is only barely effected by the absorption of the photon. For all intents and purposes, it is only the electron that is excited and the potential well in which it sits is largely unchanged.

I'm going to reiterate what I said originally; that I think our argument is largely semantic. I don't think it's inappropriate to say that the "atom" is excited, but I also don't think it's inappropriate to say that the electron is excited.


My point is that electrons in atoms exhibit their energy levels because of interactions with the nucleus, eg : L-S-coupling or Coulombic-interaction.

In my original response to you: "There is some coupling between the electron and the nucleus, but its a very small effect". Again, I'm going to use the analogy of the solar system because I still don't think you've shown it to be inappropriate. In actuality, Pluto does not orbit about the sun, the sun and Pluto orbit about their mutual center of mass (in an idealized two-body system). Thus, the ejection of Pluto from the system would effect the sun, but only a negligible amount. Yet we still talk about "Pluto orbiting the sun" and "Pluto getting excited to a higher orbit". It conveys basically the same information.


As a proof : a free electron has no such energy states. This is why i asked you about electrons in ayoms and free electrons.

That's not a proof of what you're trying to show. The quantum view of nature does indeed change many things, most notably the quantization of energy levels and the shift from point particles to wave functions. However, it does not change the fact that a much more massive body will be effected less by a given force field than a much less massive one. So it is with the atom, and so it is with the solar system.


You cannot distinguish between different electrons that make up any Fermi-gass...What is your point ? All electrons obey this very same Pauli principle, so how can it be used to distinguish between electrons.

We're not talking about a Fermi gas, that was something you brought up in a separate point. We're talking about an electron and a nucleus, two very distinguishable particles.


But in the example that you gave, isn't there an interaction going on that determins how the bodies move and what energy they exhibit ? I think so...So i really don't see the justification for your analogy.

The point of the analogy was to show that, despite the mutual interaction, very little information was lost by talking only about the changes in the much less massive component. The potential well in which it was moving would be almost completely unchanged.


Again, what i said is that the energy levels of electrons in atoms are determined by their interaction with the actual nucleus. Why is this so hard to get ? It's quite elementary if you think about it...

I'm well aware of what you're trying to show; in fact, I was aware of it from the beginning. I'm trying to show you why it makes no practical difference in the language of atomic physics.
 
  • #16
I think the original poster was confused by the 'spontanaeity' of the spontaneous emission, i.e. where does the time-invariance come into play when one is discussing energy eigenstates. Why does a time-invariant solution suddenly change?

The explanations offered in this thread that run along the lines of 'It is in a higher energy state, so it wants to decay into a lower energy state' doesn't cut the mustard for me. While I realize it is a standard textbook explanation, not everything decides to shed its potential energy, simply because a lower potential energy state is available to it.

(If this explanation is used, it begs more questions. Why do energy states have lifetimes? Why doesn't this decay occur instantaneously? Why do different energy levels have different lifetimes?)

I will quote one case, that of lighting a match. A case more relevant to this thread, is that of metastable states. An atom in a metastable energy state, kept in isolation will not decay into a lower energy state even though there is one available to it because selection rules forbid this from happening.

External pertubations (such as a collision with another atom) will cause an atom in such a state to eventually decay into a lower energy state.

Sorry, but I have to go, so apologies if this post seems hastily constructed.

marlon said:
ps : what did i read about a photon decaying ?

Sorry, I meant atom, I didn't have time to read over my post (I was being hustled out to lunch).

Thanks Marlon, for pointing this out.

Claude.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Well,Marlon,the photon had tooth decay,of course...

I'm surprised no one made a reference towards a book where he/she could find the theory of spontaneous emission.

2 levels:
*semiclassic (classical radiation,quantum system) which is discribed in every graduate course on QM.
*quantum (qauntum radiation (photons),quantum system (electrons in atoms)) which is discribed in any serious book on QED.The first is,of course,"The Quantum Theory of Radiation" by W.Heitler (any edition,any language).


Daniel.
 
  • #18
marlon said:
That is just what i wanted to clarify : the energylevels are not inherent to the actual electrons but to the electron-nucleus interaction.

regards
marlon

I think you just ruled out spin-spin interaction in the case of electrons (Fermi gas) and a great deal of the theory behind "magnetism"...

Daniel.
 
  • #19
marlon said:
Yes we very much are...
Again, the electronic levels very much explain the actual electronic behavior. You cannot talk about these energy levels without explaining where they came from and why they exist. I challenge you to explain this without bringing in the atomic nucleus.

Hyperfine structure due to electron spin-electron spin coupling...? :rolleyes:


marlon said:
Besides this 'distinguishability' does not exist in QM.

Say what...? Ever heard of the hydrogen atom,to give the simplest example...?



marlon said:
I have been answering such misconceptions ad nauseum...

So did I. :wink:

Daniel.
 
  • #20
SpaceTiger said:
Again, I challenge you to explain the energy of Pluto without invoking the sun. This is beside the point.

What energy...?Internal?Rotation around its axis?Translation through an empty space in which only the I-st postulate of Newton would apply...?


Daniel.
 
  • #21
marlon said:
My point is that electrons in atoms exhibit their energy levels because of interactions with the nucleus, eg : L-S-coupling or Coulombic-interaction.

Well,what do you know,it's the 3-rd time,but i'll say u ruled out hyperfine structure due to electron spin-spin coupling.:rolleyes:

marlon said:
Again, what i said is that the energy levels of electrons in atoms are determined by their interaction with the actual nucleus. Why is this so hard to get ? It's quite elementary if you think about it...

I hope u got the picture.I've said it 3 times already.


Daniel.
 
  • #22
dextercioby said:
What energy...?

Its orbital energy, of course.
 
  • #23
dextercioby said:
I hope u got the picture.I've said it 3 times already.

Three times before he could respond. Why don't you say it a fourth time and maybe you'll look smarter? :grumpy:
 
  • #24
SpaceTiger said:
Three times before he could respond. Why don't you say it a fourth time and maybe you'll look smarter? :grumpy:

:rofl: Quite correct SpaceTiger. But this is typical for dextercioby, don't mind him and let us not spoil his 15 minutes of fame. Clearly the remarks that he made are not relevant to our discussion.

regards
marlon
 
  • #25
dextercioby said:
I think you just ruled out spin-spin interaction in the case of electrons (Fermi gas) and a great deal of the theory behind "magnetism"...

Daniel.

:rofl: :rofl:

This is irrelevant since we are not talking about a Fermi gas here. Read, dexter, before you respond.

Besides, why start whinning about the hyperfine structure? We are not talking about that. Or did you just want to prove that you also knew that name ? :rofl:

marlon
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Fortunately,i'm quite familiar with your attitude of denying the evidence.I won't bother to search through the 1-st page of the thread for the syntagma "Fermi gas" (actually "gass" :wink:).

Daniel.
 
  • #27
dextercioby said:
Hyperfine structure due to electron spin-electron spin coupling...? :rolleyes:

I never said there are no interactions between electrons, even in an atom (and yes these interactions also give rise to electronic energy levels. But they certainly are not the only factor in determining electronic energy levels in atoms : if there is no nucleus, there is no 'orbit' !). My point is that the electronic energy levels in the atom comes from the fact that the electrons are 'in a specific configuration' : ie they are 'bounded' to a nucleus. These energy levels of electrons come from the interaction with the actual atomic nucleus. That is my point and the fact that i mentioned a Fermi gas, was to point out that such electrons do not have those specific energy levels that electrons in atoms do have

Like i said before : So when a photon of the right energy hits an atom, it doesn't "excite" an electron, it excites the WHOLE ATOM. The energy states that the electron can occupy is a result of the combination of the nucleus and the electron, not just the electron alone. As a proof : a free electron has no such energy states, though the electrons can undergo spin spin interactions in both cases.

marlon
 
Last edited:
  • #28
I think your definition of Fermi gas doesn't coincide with mine.May i know what exactly it is...?

Daniel.
 
  • #29
Rise above it, guys. What are you trying to prove?
 
  • #30
Unless this thread goes back to addressing the OP's question, I'm closing it.

Dexter, surely you know that marlon is aware of spin-spin and spin-orbit interactions.

Marlon, let's keep personal banter out of this discussion.

ST & marlon, let's drop the finer argument over "what" gets excited, for now.

Back to the OP's question : (roughly) If eigenstates are "stationary states", why do you have spontaneous decay to lower states ?
 
  • #31
Gokul: This thread actually has "settled down". Unfortunately, Akuro is responding to something that is at least 2 weeks old (see date of dexter's last post).

Zz.
 
  • #32
Ugh...okay.
 

1. Why do excited electrons decay to the ground state?

Excited electrons decay to the ground state because they are in an unstable, high-energy state and naturally seek to reach a more stable, lower-energy state. This process is known as relaxation or de-excitation.

2. How does an excited electron decay to the ground state?

An excited electron can decay to the ground state through various processes such as emitting a photon of light, transferring its energy to another particle, or undergoing a collision with another particle.

3. What factors affect the rate of electron decay to the ground state?

The rate of electron decay to the ground state can be affected by factors such as the energy difference between the excited and ground states, the presence of other particles that can interact with the electron, and the temperature of the system.

4. Can excited electrons decay to a state other than the ground state?

Yes, excited electrons can decay to states other than the ground state. This is known as a non-radiative decay, where the electron transfers its energy to another particle without emitting a photon. However, the ground state is the most common destination for excited electrons to decay to.

5. What are the applications of understanding electron decay to the ground state?

Understanding electron decay to the ground state is crucial in fields such as quantum mechanics, atomic and molecular physics, and material science. This knowledge helps us understand the behavior of atoms and molecules, as well as develop technologies such as lasers and semiconductors.

Similar threads

  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
3
Views
267
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
925
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top