Angular Momentum of 0 for Electrons in Ground Energy State

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Momentum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of angular momentum for electrons in the ground energy state, particularly focusing on why electrons in s states are considered to have zero angular momentum despite their movement around the nucleus. The conversation touches on quantum mechanical interpretations, classical analogies, and the implications of quantum numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how electrons can have zero angular momentum if they are moving around the nucleus, drawing parallels to higher energy states where angular momentum is non-zero.
  • Others challenge the assumption of "movement," suggesting that electrons may not have classical trajectories and could be represented as stationary wave-like clouds.
  • A participant presents a classical analogy involving circular orbits and angular momentum, noting that as the radius approaches zero, angular momentum also approaches zero, which may relate to quantum states.
  • There is mention of the quantum numbers, particularly l, which indicates angular momentum, and how s states correspond to l = 0, leading to no angular dependence.
  • One participant emphasizes the experimental fact that all s-states have zero angular momentum, suggesting a need to accept a wave-like behavior of electrons at the atomic level.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of electrons being "moving" and whether this leads to radiation, questioning the source of the perceived problem in understanding electron behavior.
  • A later reply suggests that it may be more productive to focus on mathematical models and experimental results rather than trying to visualize atomic structures, given the complexities and contradictions in classical interpretations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of electron movement and angular momentum, with no consensus reached on how to reconcile classical and quantum perspectives. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on classical analogies that may not accurately reflect quantum behavior, and the unresolved nature of how to interpret the movement of electrons in relation to angular momentum and radiation.

pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
How can there be an angular momentum of 0 for electrons in the ground energy state? It is moving around the nucleus just like it is when the electrons are in the 2s state. But in that case there is angular momentum.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How do you know it is "moving"?

Zz.
 
Does not s equals [tex]l = 0[/tex] ?

And have you regarded the quantum mechanical view of the electron "moving" around the nucleus? What does the quantum numbers [tex]l[/tex] represent?
 
Last edited:
Let me think out loud for a bit.

Suppose that a classical object of mass [itex]m[/itex] is subject to an inwardly directed central force of magnitude [itex]A/r^2[/itex]. If the object is in a circular orbit of radius [itex]R[/itex], then the magnitude of its angular momentum is [itex]L = mvR[/itex]. Also, Newton's second law gives

[tex]m \frac{v^2}{R} = \frac{A}{R^2},[/tex]

which leads to

[tex]v = \sqrt{\frac{A}{m}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{R}}.[/tex]

Use in this in the expression for angular momentum:

[tex]L = \sqrt{Am} \sqrt{R}.[/tex]

Thus, classically, arbitrarily small values of [itex]L[/itex] are allowed and as an orbit's radius goes to zero, so too does the magnitude of the angular moment.

In this limit, the preferred axis "disappars". Quantum mechanically, [itex]L = 0[/itex] states are spherically symmetric.

As I say, I'm thinking out loud, so don't take anything I've written seriously.
 
Last edited:
ZapperZ said:
How do you know it is "moving"?

Zz.

Good point. It could be stationary clouds of some sort. However at higher energetic states, |L| is not zero so does it imply it is 'moving'?
malawi_glenn said:
Does not s equals [tex]l = 0[/tex] ?
Thats right. l=0 when in the s state.
malawi_glenn said:
What does the quantum numbers [tex]l[/tex] represent?

Good question. What does the quantum numbers represent? A direct answer is numerals to track the solution of the Schrödinger equation for a hyrdogenic system. And when the classical analogies of quantum operators are applied to the SE, out comes these numerals that we assigned. The angular momentum operator spits out these L numbers which we have to intepret it as angular momentum.
 
Good question! However, your last remark contains an error. Namely, all S-states have zero angular momentum! This is very counter intuitive but also an experimental fact...

The problem is that we are used to think classically... However, on the atomic level experiments show that electrons behave wave-like. In order to understand your problem you must first accept this view...

Now, if you solve Schrödinger's wave equation then you can obtain so-called stationairy solutions. Simplified they represent standing waves in a Coulomb potential (the attractive force between proton and electron). The ground state and all other S-states then represent standing waves in the radial direction without an angular dependence. Because of this spherical symmetry there is not angular preference, and as a consequence no angular momentum.

I hope this brings you closer to your final answer!

Midas
 
pivoxa15 said:
Good point. It could be stationary clouds of some sort. However at higher energetic states, |L| is not zero so does it imply it is 'moving'?

If it is "moving", especially in the geometry that has been described for the p,d,f,etc. orbitals, then it should radiate, no? But it doesn't.

So where do you think is the source of the problem here? Think about it. We have already addressed some of this in the FAQ.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
If it is "moving", especially in the geometry that has been described for the p,d,f,etc. orbitals, then it should radiate, no? But it doesn't.

So where do you think is the source of the problem here? Think about it. We have already addressed some of this in the FAQ.

Zz.

I am starting to think that its best not to think about a picture of the atom at all and just do the maths and get experimental results because nothing seems to make sense. The electron is moving but there is no paths. That is all I can infer. The electron can't be stationary for if it was then I will know its exact location so HUP is violated. There can't be a paths because then we will know its position and velocity instantaneously.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K