Atomic Structure: Is It Necessary to Assume Orbits Are Circular?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of electrons revolving around the nucleus in orbits and whether it is necessary to assume that these orbits are circular. It is mentioned that this classical picture is not entirely accurate and that the quantum mechanical description of the atom is more precise. The idea of spherically symmetric wavefunctions is also brought up, and it is noted that different types of orbitals exist. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of understanding atomic structure and suggests further reading for those interested in learning more.
  • #1
Tush
7
0
Please help me in clearing my basic doubt

We all know that positive charges are concentrated at the centre of the atom , known as nucleus and electrons revolves around the nucleus in orbits. Is it necessary to assume that orbits are circular ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Tush said:
Please help me in clearing my basic doubt

We all know that positive charges are concentrated at the centre of the atom , known as nucleus and electrons revolves around the nucleus in orbits. Is it necessary to assume that orbits are circular ?

Be careful. A classical picture of "electrons revolv[ing] around the nucleus in orbits" is not correct in a literal sense. An atom is a quantum mechanical system, and the electrons can only be described by their wavefunction, rather than a well-defined trajectory.

With that said, one needs to make no assumptions about the shape of these wavefunctions. They can be calculated. Some of them are spherically symmetric (the probability of finding that electron only depends on the distance from the nucleus), but others are not.
 
  • #3
Note also, that the quantum mechanical description of the atom is probably something that is accessible at the college level. Until you have reached the necessary level of preparation, there is always the Bohr model, which provides several useful insights and conveys many of the key characteristics of the quantum mechanical description, but is not quite as accurate as it. Within the Bohr model of the atom, the nucleus is considered to be a heavy positively charged point at the center of the atom, and negatively charged point-like electrons revolve around the nucleus in circular orbits.
 
  • #4
short answer: no. but it has some usefulness as noted.

Try reading the Wikipedia introductions for "electron orbital" ...both atomic and molecular...
you might also try reading Wikipedia about 'electrical conductors'...where conuction electrons move along a conductor as in a current carrying copper wire.
 
  • #6
the_house said:
Some of them are spherically symmetric (the probability of finding that electron only depends on the distance from the nucleus), but others are not.

Right. It also happens that the ones which are spherically symmetric (s-orbitals) correspond to cases where the electron has no angular momentum. So if you were to attempt to describe the motion classically (bearing in mind that they don't actually have trajectories) it'd be more correct to say the electrons are moving 'inwards and outwards' from the nucleus, rather than 'orbiting' it.

This is part of the reason why classical/semiclassical models of the atom ultimately can't work; because there's no way that something moving as a classical particle can have a spherically symmetrical pattern of motion without having any angular momentum. (this is only one of several deficiencies of the Bohr model)
 

1. What is atomic structure and why is it important?

Atomic structure refers to the arrangement and behavior of subatomic particles, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons, within an atom. It is important because it helps us understand the properties and behavior of matter, and it provides a foundation for many scientific fields, including chemistry and physics.

2. Why do we assume that orbits are circular in atomic structure?

The assumption of circular orbits in atomic structure is based on the Bohr model, which was developed in the early 20th century. This model suggested that electrons move in circular orbits around the nucleus, similar to the way planets orbit the sun. While this model has since been replaced by more complex models, the assumption of circular orbits still serves as a useful simplification for understanding atomic structure.

3. Are orbits actually circular in atomic structure?

No, orbits in atomic structure are not actually circular. In reality, the paths of electrons around the nucleus are more complex and cannot be accurately described as circles. The Bohr model has been replaced by more accurate models, such as the quantum mechanical model, which describes electron behavior using probability distributions rather than fixed orbits.

4. How does the assumption of circular orbits affect our understanding of atomic structure?

The assumption of circular orbits allows us to make predictions and calculations about atomic behavior that are close enough to reality for practical purposes. However, it is important to remember that this assumption is just a simplification and does not accurately reflect the true behavior of electrons in atoms. As our understanding of atomic structure has evolved, we have developed more accurate models that do not rely on the assumption of circular orbits.

5. Can we observe circular orbits in atoms?

No, we cannot directly observe the paths of electrons around the nucleus in atoms. The behavior of electrons can only be described through mathematical models and indirect observations, such as spectroscopic studies. However, these models and observations have shown that the assumption of circular orbits is not accurate and that electrons have more complex behaviors in atoms.

Similar threads

  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
2
Views
893
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top